386 S.W.3d 796
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Jennings, a tenured MSU faculty member, sued MSU for age discrimination and retaliation (Jennings I).
- She sought to amend to add two counts: breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and MAPA declaratory relief.
- The trial court denied the amendment request, and Jennings II was filed as a separate two-count action while Jennings I remained pending.
- MSU moved to dismiss Jennings II for failure to state a claim and for abatement due to another action between the same parties for the same subject.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed on Rule 55.27(a)(6) grounds, without addressing abatement.
- The dissenter would allow Jennings II to proceed, finding the petition adequately pled a contract-based implied covenant claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Count I plead a viable breach of the implied covenant? | Jennings pled tenure-based contract implied by the Faculty Handbook. | No contract terms are pleaded; claims are conclusory. | Count I fails to state a claim. |
| Does Count II seek a proper MAPA declaratory judgment against MSU? | MAPA applies to MSU via its rules and procedures; due process claims are actionable. | MSU is not a MAPA agency; even if MAPA applies, relief by declaratory judgment is improper. | Count II is not viable. |
| Was dismissal under Rule 55.27(a)(6) proper? | Pleading should be liberally construed; discovery may reveal facts to support claims. | Petition lacks necessary facts; fails to state a claim. | Dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (higher pleading standard for state claims; more than mere conclusions needed)
- Pulitzer Pub. v. Transit Cas. Co., 43 S.W.3d 293 (Mo. banc 2001) (declines notice-pleading in Missouri; requires factual support)
- Glass v. Mancuso, 444 S.W.2d 467 (Mo.1969) (implied covenant cannot expand contract duties beyond express terms)
- Morton v. Hearst Corp., 779 S.W.2d 268 (Mo.Ct.App.1989) (implied covenant not to impair anticipated contract benefits)
- Koger v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 28 S.W.3d 405 (Mo.App.2000) (implied covenant to not defeat the spirit of the transaction)
- Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan v. Community Health Plan, 81 S.W.3d 34 (Mo.App. W.D.2002) (cited on contract-based implied duties and procedural fairness)
- Anderson v. Div. of Child Support Enforcement, 995 S.W.2d 546 (Mo.App.1999) (sovereign-like considerations in MAPA-related questions)
- Yarber v. McHenry, 915 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. banc 1995) (MAPA applicability and agency status considerations)
- Edoho v. Bd. of Curators of Lincoln Univ., 344 S.W.3d 794 (Mo.App.2011) (MAPA applicability in higher education context)
- Kixmiller v. Bd. of Curators of Lincoln Univ., 341 S.W.3d 711 (Mo.App.2011) (MAPA and higher education procedure considerations)
- Snowden v. Northwest Missouri State University, 624 S.W.2d 161 (Mo.App. W.D.1981) ( Faculty Handbook guidance in termination-related claims)
- Grantham v. Rockhurst University, 563 S.W.2d 147 (Mo.App. K.C.D.1978) (faculty handbook as guidance in termination-related disputes)