Kenneth Ferguson v. Curators of Lincoln University, In Their Official Capacities, a/k/a Lincoln University
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 556
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Kenneth Ferguson worked at Lincoln University from 1977 and was appointed Director of Governmental and Community Relations in 2009; he was terminated effective August 16, 2012 with Lincoln citing budget constraints.
- Lincoln eliminated only two positions (including Ferguson’s), saving about $134,000, while contemporaneously approving a 2% across-the-board pay increase costing roughly $595,000.
- Ferguson was retirement-eligible at the time of termination; his supervisor had previously noted Ferguson could be given up because he was eligible to retire.
- An internal grievance panel (including Dr. K.B. Paul) recommended upholding the termination; Paul made comments suggesting it was "humane" to lay off someone eligible to retire rather than a younger employee.
- Ferguson sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) alleging age discrimination; a jury found Lincoln liable, and the trial court awarded Ferguson attorneys’ fees; both parties appealed (Lincoln on evidentiary, sufficiency, and fee issues; Ferguson cross-appealed fee calculation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Paul’s grievance-hearing statements | Statements show age-based stereotyping by someone who could influence the decision | Statements are irrelevant because Dr. Paul was not a decisionmaker and spoke only for himself | Admitted: comments relevant because Paul could influence the ultimate decisionmaker and thus were probative of age as a contributing factor |
| Sufficiency of evidence that age contributed to termination | Retirement eligibility, elimination limited to two retirement-eligible employees, implausible budget explanations, and Paul’s comments support inference age was a contributing factor | Retirement eligibility/pension status is not a proxy for age; employer’s legitimate budget reasons were the cause | Sufficient: jury could infer age was a contributing factor given retirement-based considerations, weak budget explanations, and influential comments |
| Use of retirement eligibility as proxy for age | Retirement eligibility under Lincoln’s plan depends on age and years of service, so it can be an age-dependent factor | Relies on Hazen Paper to argue pension/vested status is analytically distinct from age and not an age proxy | Retirement eligibility may be a proxy where employer acts on the age-dependent retirement factor; here jury could find it contributed |
| Attorneys’ fees amount and award timing | Fees at $325/hr reasonable given counsel’s experience; supplemental fee for post-trial work should be included | $325/hr exceeds local prevailing rates; plaintiff had limited success so fees should be reduced; trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend | Court affirmed $325/hr and inclusion of supplemental post-trial fees: trial court had jurisdiction and did not abuse discretion in awarding fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (liability can flow from discrimination by agents who influence the ultimate decisionmaker)
- Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggens, 507 U.S. 604 (1993) (pension status is analytically distinct from age but may be a proxy if employer treats them as correlated)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (discrediting employer’s explanation may permit a finding of intentional discrimination)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (rejection of employer’s reasons can support inference of discrimination)
- Mohr v. Dustrol, Inc., 306 F.3d 636 (8th Cir. 2002) (inquiry not limited to formal decisionmakers; individuals who influence the decision are relevant)
- Radabaugh v. Zip Feed Mills, Inc., 997 F.2d 444 (8th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes discriminatory animus in decisional process from stray remarks)
- Cox v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., 473 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. banc 2015) (employment discrimination cases often rely on circumstantial evidence and relevance/probative-value balancing)
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (Missouri’s MHRA uses a "contributing factor" standard)
- Thomas v. McKeever's Enters., Inc., 388 S.W.3d 206 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (elements for submissibility under MHRA age-termination claim)