Mischelle Richter v. Advance Auto Parts
686 F.3d 847
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Richter was a store manager at Advance Auto Parts from 1999 to Aug. 25, 2009; she reported colleagues’ misconduct including theft and sick-leave policy violations.
- On Aug. 14, 2009 Richter was removed from the store-manager role for failing to make timely bank deposits; a different lower-paid position was offered.
- On Aug. 18, 2009 Richter filed an EEOC charge alleging race and sex discrimination; the complaint was deemed filed with the MHRA.
- The EEOC charge did not include retaliation, and the EEOC eventually dismissed the charge with a right-to-sue notice.
- Richter filed suit in district court alleging Title VII retaliation, MHRA retaliation, and a Missouri wrongful-discharge claim; the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust and for failure to state a claim on wrongful discharge.
- The court of appeals affirmed the Title VII and MHRA retaliation dismissals but reversed and remanded on the state-law wrongful-discharge claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII retaliation claims must be exhausted despite post-charge events. | Richter argues post-charge retaliation is exhausted. | Advance Auto argues Morgan requires exhaustion for discrete retaliation acts. | Exhaustion required; Title VII retaliation claims properly dismissed. |
| Whether MHRA retaliation claims require administrative exhaustion. | Richter contends MHRA retaliation is exhaustively waivable. | Advance Auto maintains exhaustion applies under MHRA as well. | MHRA retaliation claim must be exhausted; dismissal proper. |
| Whether Richter stated a valid Missouri wrongful discharge claim. | Richter pleaded state-law violations (e.g., theft) as bases for wrongful discharge. | District court correctly dismissed for vagueness or lack of public-policy support. | Wrongful-discharge claim stated for theft-based conduct; district court erred in part; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court 2002) (exhaustion applies to discrete acts; Morgan guides statutory text)
- Wedow v. City of Kansas City, 442 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2006) (limits on like-or-reasonably-related-to exception; post-Morgan applicability)
- Wentz v. Md. Cas. Co., 869 F.2d 1153 (8th Cir. 1989) (like-or-reasonably-related-to exception previously allowed exhaustion)
- Anderson v. Block, 807 F.2d 145 (8th Cir. 1986) (pre-Morgan related-exhaustion principles)
- Duncan v. Delta Consol. Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2004) (retaliation not necessarily like underlying discrimination)
- Margiotta v. Christian Hosp. Ne. Nw., 315 S.W.3d 342 (Mo. 2010) (wrongful discharge requires clear public-policy violation; specificity)
- Reed v. McDonald’s Corp., 363 S.W.3d 134 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (exhaustion analysis under MHRA for related claims)
- Faust v. Ryder Commercial Leasing & Servs., 954 S.W.2d 383 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (theft of employer property supports wrongful discharge)
- Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. 2010) (public policy limits to at-will employment)