Kline v. City of Kansas City
334 S.W.3d 632
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Kline, a long-time Kansas City Fire Department firefighter, rose to battalion chief before resigning in 2006.
- She previously sued the City for gender discrimination and retaliation, winning in 1997 and 2001 in federal court with promotions and facilities relief.
- In 2007, Kline filed MHRA claims in Jackson County alleging sex discrimination (Count I) and retaliation (Count II) related to post-verdict conditions and station facilities.
- City implemented a plan for unisex, “gender-plus” facilities beginning in 2001, funded by a 15-year fire sales tax, to address prior discrimination.
- Dyer became Fire Chief in 2000 and restricted trades to battalion chiefs after three years or extraordinary circumstances, affecting Kline’s 2006 trade request.
- Jury found for City on both counts; post-trial motions for new trial and JNOV were denied, and on appeal the City’s rulings were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery-related witnesses and nondisclosures | Kline contends City’s post-disclosure testim. violated discovery rules | City allowed live testimony; discrepancies were not prejudicial | Point One denied; no discovery violation established |
| Admission of station-construction evidence after 8/31/2006 | Evidence post-retirement showed discriminatory conduct; prejudicial | Evidence was cumulative and relevant to City’s anti-discrimination plan | Point Two denied; no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence |
| Exclusion of three retaliation incidents | Excluded acts show retaliatory animus toward Kline | Not probative of discrimination; not sufficiently connected | Point Three denied; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Exclusion of Sections 292.150/292.160 statutes | Statutes relevant to discriminatory intent; probative | Statutes not MHRA-related; not probative of discrimination | Point Four denied; statutes not controlling or relevant to MHRA claim |
| Jury instructions 8 and 13 as improper mere- or unnecessary-detail | Instructions contained excessive evidentiary detail | Instructions properly follow law and are understandable | Point Five denied; preserved objection limited to unnecessary detail; reporting not reversible error |
| Cumulative error claim | Cumulative evidentiary errors deprived fair trial | No single or cumulative prejudice shown | Point Six denied; no reversible cumulative error |
| Judgment notwithstanding verdict (JNOV) | Kline presented substantial uncontroverted evidence | City’s evidence created genuine issue for jury | Point Seven denied; no basis for JNOV |
Key Cases Cited
- Giles v. Riverside Transp., Inc., 266 S.W.3d 290 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (trial court broad discretion in discovery rulings; prejudice standard)
- Mitchell v. Schnucks Mkts., Inc., 100 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) (discovery rulings; incomplete/evasive answers allowed admission of testimony)
- Ziolkowski v. Heartland Regional Medical Center, 317 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (abuse of discretion governs evidentiary rulings; relevance and prejudice balance)
- Rinehart v. Shelter General Insurance Co., 261 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (evidence of other acts admissible to show intent when probative)
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (direct evidence rarely present in discrimination cases; other acts may show motive)
- Lasky v. Union Elec. Co., 936 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. banc 1997) (statutory readings to jury improper; law from instructions)
- Carroll v. Kelsey, 234 S.W.3d 559 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (preservation of objections; can't expand grounds on appeal)
- Arch Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 294 S.W.3d 520 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (plain error review for civil cases is rare)