Minze v. Missouri Department of Public Safety
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 401
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Stacy Minze, a Missouri Capitol Police lieutenant, complained of sex discrimination after conflicts with her chief and filed an internal grievance in 2007; she later applied for and was granted long-term disability in 2008 and was deemed to have resigned under then-existing regulations.
- Minze filed an MHRA charge alleging sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation; she received a right-to-sue letter and sued in state court alleging discrimination, retaliation, negligent supervision and negligent training.
- At trial the jury found for MDPS on sex discrimination but for Minze on retaliation, awarding $70,000 actual and $70,000 punitive damages; the trial court later awarded $860,113.42 in attorney’s fees and costs.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) the verdict-directing instruction on retaliation was defective because it failed to list specific actionable acts (creating a “roving commission”), and (2) the trial court erred in excluding impeachment evidence about Minze’s disability/worker’s compensation claims.
- The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding the retaliation verdict director improperly allowed the jury to consider non-actionable and time-barred conduct in the aggregate; the second point was deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the retaliation verdict-directing instruction was proper | Minze argued the instruction tracked statutory language ("adverse action") and was sufficient; she sought a simple, non-MAI instruction | State argued the instruction failed to identify specific actionable retaliatory acts, giving the jury a "roving commission" to aggregate actionable and non-actionable conduct | Court held the instruction was defective: term "adverse action" without listing actionable acts gave a roving commission and prejudiced the State; judgment reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Whether exclusion of impeachment evidence about disability/comp claims was error | Minze did not contest in way that preserved reversal once instruction issue resolved | State argued impeachment evidence showing Minze claimed total disability was relevant to credibility | Court declined to address this point as moot after reversal on the instruction issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Klotz v. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., 311 S.W.3d 752 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard of de novo review for jury instructions)
- Scanwell Freight Express STL, Inc. v. Chan, 162 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. banc 2005) (instructions that allow jury to treat aggregate conduct as actionable create a roving commission)
- Tisch v. DST Sys., Inc., 368 S.W.3d 245 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (using "including" in instruction impermissibly enlarges scope of conduct jurors may consider)
- McCrainey v. Kansas City Mo. Sch. Dist., 337 S.W.3d 746 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (elements of MHRA retaliation claim and good-faith complaint standard)
- Marion v. Marcus, 199 S.W.3d 887 (Mo.App.W.D.2006) (instruction correctness judged by how average juror would understand it)
- Centerre Bank of Kansas City Nat’l Ass’n v. Angle, 976 S.W.2d 608 (Mo.App.W.D.1998) (jury must be informed what alleged conduct it may consider to find liability)
- Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854 (Mo.App.E.D.2009) (time-barred or non-actionable adverse acts may nevertheless be admissible for other purposes)