Kixmiller v. Board of Curators of Lincoln University
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 658
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Kixmiller was hired in 2004 as a boiler operator by the Board of Curators of Lincoln University and was terminated January 31, 2008.
- Kixmiller grieved the termination; March–April 2008 proceedings included an Internal Grievance Panel and a pending appeal to the President that was restarted but never completed.
- On October 14, 2009, Kixmiller filed a two-count petition against Lincoln University and two individuals, seeking declaratory judgment and damages for due process violations.
- Defendants moved to dismiss arguing MAPA limitations (30 days), sovereign immunity, and failure to pursue an adequate MAPA remedy.
- The trial court dismissed for failure to timely sue under MAPA; the appeal followed challenging the timing and the MAPA applicability.
- The appellate court reversed, remanding, holding that the petition did not show Lincoln University was an MAPA agency on its face, so MAPA time-bar did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MAPA timing bars the petition | Kixmiller argues MAPA 30-day limit applies. | Defendants contend petition is time-barred under MAPA. | No facial bar under MAPA because agency status not shown. |
| Whether Lincoln University is an MAPA agency | University had constitutionally adequate due-process safeguards; agency status not excluded. | University is an MAPA agency if contested-case procedures apply. | Petition did not establish on its face that Lincoln University was an MAPA agency. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies applies | Exhaustion is an affirmative defense, not jurisdiction, and not shown to apply here. | Failure to exhaust forecloses the petition. | Exhaustion did not require dismissal because MAPA agency status was not shown. |
| Whether other grounds (sovereign immunity, adequate remedies) justify dismissal | Claims against individuals for due process, and independent remedies exist. | Sovereign immunity and lack of adequate remedy support dismissal. | Not dispositive; reversed on agency/limitations issue, other grounds not fatal to reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Lake St. Louis v. City of O'Fallon, 324 S.W.3d 756 (Mo. banc 2010) (motion to dismiss standards; affirmance if any meritorious ground)
- Reynolds v. Diamond Foods & Poultry, Inc., 79 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. banc 2002) (test for dismissal under MAPA and pleadings)
- Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. banc 1993) (pleading standard; liberal construction of allegations)
- Byrd v. Bd. of Curators of Lincoln Univ. of Mo., 863 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. banc 1993) (MAPA agency status of university; contested case)
- Treaster v. Betts, 324 S.W.3d 487 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (affirmative defenses in dismissal)
- Coleman v. Mo. Sec'y of State, 313 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (exhaustion as jurisdictional concept; MAPA implications)
- McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 298 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. banc 2009) (subject-matter jurisdiction; exhaustion context)
- Hagely v. Bd. of Educ. of Webster Groves School Dist., 841 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. banc 1992) (MAPA statue-of-limitations framework)
- Daniels v. Bd. of Curators of Lincoln Univ., 51 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (handbook protections create due process interest)