Janice Turner v. Kansas City Public Schools
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 329
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Turner, a long‑term KCPS secretary, filed a discrimination/retaliation charge (KCHRD/EEOC) on May 2, 2012 after workplace disputes and union grievances; KCPS received notice May 16.
- KCPS issued a Letter of Reprimand April 18 and a Letter of Final Reprimand May 24; Turner worked summer school at Wheatley without discipline or problems.
- KCPS discussed terminating Turner in June 2012; HR manager Hunt delayed action to consult legal after learning of Turner’s charge, then offered a transfer in lieu of termination.
- Turner was assigned to a new school (Knotts) for 2012–2013; KCPS later terminated her August 29, 2012, citing performance issues at Knotts.
- Turner sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act alleging age discrimination and retaliation; jury rejected age claim but found retaliation, awarding compensatory and punitive damages, plus fees and reinstatement.
- On appeal KCPS challenged sufficiency of evidence for retaliation and punitive damages; the Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded for appellate attorney’s fees determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Turner’s discrimination charge a contributing factor in her termination (retaliation)? | Turner argued KCPS decided to terminate soon after her charge, had no credible non‑retaliatory explanation, and proffered reasons were pretextual. | KCPS argued timing and intervening acts (reprimand in May; termination in August) defeat any inference that the May charge contributed to the August firing. | Held: Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported that the charge contributed to termination; JNOV properly denied. |
| Were KCPS’s proffered reasons for termination credible? | Turner pointed to contemporaneous praise at Wheatley, HR emails showing legal review because of the EEOC claim, and fact disputes undermining KCPS’s stated grounds. | KCPS claimed Turner’s misconduct and attendance problems at Knotts justified termination. | Held: Jury could disbelieve KCPS’s explanations (conflicting timecards, retroactive authorization), supporting inference of pretext. |
| Was punitive damages submissible (clear and convincing proof of culpable mental state)? | Turner argued that knowledge of the charge, internal emails calling her “cancer,” legal consultations before delaying termination, and policies against retaliation supported willful/reckless conduct. | KCPS contended insufficient evidence of intentional or reckless disregard to support punitive damages. | Held: Evidence allowed a reasonable inference of intentional/reckless conduct; punitive damages submissible. |
| Are appellate attorney’s fees awardable under MHRA? | Turner sought fees on appeal as prevailing party; no special circumstances shown to deny fees. | KCPS did not show special circumstances making fees unjust. | Held: Court grants motion and remands to trial court to quantify reasonable appellate fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurst v. Kansas City, Missouri Sch. Dist., 437 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. App. 2014) (standard for submissibility and JNOV review)
- Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. App. 2009) (elements of MHRA retaliation claim)
- McBryde v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 207 S.W.3d 162 (Mo. App. 2006) (definition of "contributing factor")
- Lomax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 243 S.W.3d 474 (Mo. App. 2007) (pretext and inference of discriminatory motive)
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (causation standards concerning contributing factors)
- Barekman v. City of Republic, 232 S.W.3d 675 (Mo. App. 2007) (fact‑based nature of retaliation inference)
- Howard v. City of Kansas City, 332 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. banc 2011) (punitive damages submissibility is legal question)
- McCrainey v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., 337 S.W.3d 746 (Mo. App. 2011) (award of attorneys’ fees under MHRA)