McCrainey v. Kansas City Missouri School District
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 407
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- McCrainey sued the School District and Amato for retaliation under the MHRA after complaining about Amato's gender-biased remarks in the workplace.
- Jury verdict awarded McCrainey $16,000 in compensatory damages against each defendant and punitive damages to both defendants; punitive awards were set in a second phase ($250,000 against the School District, $80,000 against Amato).
- The trial court vacated the punitive-damages awards and ordered a new trial solely on the amount of punitive damages because McCrainey’s counsel injected the insurance issue in the punitive phase.
- Appellants contend MHRA punishes against a government entity is unavailable, that a punitive-damages retrial on one issue may be arbitrary, and that liability issues or erroneous instructions should be reviewed too.
- Howard v. City of Kansas City (Mo. banc.) later held punitive damages are available against governmental entities under the MHRA, informing the permissible scope of damages in this appeal.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s action, held jurisdiction to review liability as well as punitive-damages issues, and remanded for a reasonable amount of appellate-attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May punitive damages be awarded against a government entity under the MHRA? | McCrainey asserts MHRA allows punitive damages against government entities. | School District argues MHRA does not authorize punitive damages against government entities. | Punitive damages are available against governmental entities under MHRA. |
| Did McCrainey prove a submissible retaliation claim under MHRA based on a good-faith belief of prohibited conduct? | McCrainey contends good-faith belief of discrimination suffices, even if underlying conduct isn’t proven unlawful. | School District contends no protected activity was shown under MHRA retaliation. | McCrainey established a good-faith, reasonable belief that Amato's conduct violated MHRA. |
| Did Instructions 7 and 12 correctly submit retaliation claims and preserve error? | McCrainey argues instructions properly permitted finding retaliation based on protected activity. | School District contends the instructions were erroneous and not preserved for review. | Submission of Instructions 7 and 12 did not prejudice; no plain error. |
| Was the trial court proper to grant a new trial on punitive damages alone when liability findings were intact? | McCrainey contends limited new trial avoids duplicative litigation and preserves liability verdict. | School District argues for a broader new trial on all issues in line with Ackmann. | Permissible; Burnett permits a new trial on punitive damages alone where liability is unimpaired. |
| Should appellate attorneys’ fees be awarded under MHRA, and how should the amount be determined on appeal? | McCrainey seeks appellate fees as prevailing MHRA plaintiff. | School District challenges the reasonableness of such fees. | Appellate attorneys’ fees awarded; remanded to trial court to determine reasonable amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. City of Kansas City, 332 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. banc 2011) (punitive damages available against governmental entities under MHRA)
- Burnett v. Griffith, 769 S.W.2d 780 (Mo. banc 1989) (new trial on punitive damages alone permissible when liability is not in error)
- Ackmann v. Keeney-Toelle Real Estate Co., 401 S.W.2d 483 (Mo. banc 1966) (traditional rule requiring all issues for new trial when liability is disputed)
- Stith v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 251 S.W.2d 693 (Mo. banc 1952) (review of liability when new trial on damages only)
- Nelson v. Kansas City, 227 S.W.2d 672 (Mo. banc 1950) (review of liability when new trial on damages)
- Barekman v. City of Republic, 232 S.W.3d 675 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (retaliation claim not conditioned on success of underlying discrimination)
- Buettner v. Arch Coal Sales Co., 216 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2000) (retaliation claim not conditioned on underlying merits)
- Wills v. Whitlock, 139 S.W.3d 643 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (liberal construction of notice of appeal where order attached)