Plengemeier v. Thermadyne Industries, Inc.
409 S.W.3d 395
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant alleges gender discrimination under MHRA against Thermadyne and Mueller based on a continuing pattern of pay and promotion practices.
- Appellant was a National Accounts Manager from 2004, the only woman in sales/marketing in Americas group, reporting to Mueller.
- In 2009, Thermadyne hired Coco (a man) for Director of Americas Marketing and National Accounts after Appellant applied; Appellant was not interviewed.
- Appellant discovered years of pay disparity: lower base pay, bonuses, 401(k) match, and company car compared to male counterpart Moore (2006–2009).
- Appellant resigned in January 2010 after discovering discriminatory practices; last paycheck January 22, 2010.
- Appellant filed MCHR charge April 21, 2010; right-to-sue letter received October 14, 2011; filed circuit court January 10, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuing violation tolls MHRA limitations | Plengemeier argues continuing violation tolls the two-year limit. | Respondents argue the doctrine does not apply here (not a pervasive pattern). | Yes; continuing violation applies to ongoing discrimination pattern. |
| Whether allegations show ongoing pattern of discrimination | Allegations show repeated, interrelated pay/benefit decisions from 2006–2010. | Disparate treatment amounts to discrete acts not a pattern. | Yes; pleadings show a pattern/series of related acts. |
| Whether at least one discriminatory act occurred within filing period | Last acted within two years prior to filing (through January 13, 2010). | Discrimination events were outside the window unless under continuing violation. | Yes; at least one act occurred within the period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, 606 S.W.2d 496 (Mo.App. W.D.1980) (continuing violation framework in employment discrimination)
- Tisch v. DST Systems, Inc., 368 S.W.3d 245 (Mo.App. W.D.2012) (continuing violation requires ongoing pattern, not isolated acts)
- Roberts v. Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co., 763 F.Supp. 1043 (W.D.Mo.1991) (continued discriminatory selection process within two years not time-barred)
- Pollock v. Wetterau Food Distribution Group, 11 S.W.3d 754 (Mo.App. E.D.1999) (equitable tolling and continuing violation doctrine for MHRA timing)