651 F.3d 894
8th Cir.2011Background
- Porter worked for the City of Lake Lotawana from 1996 until July 2006 when terminated.
- In Jan 2006 co-workers complained to the mayor about Porter's use of a City Visa card for personal purchases; Porter was ordered to stop and later to surrender cards.
- Porter prepared internal notes and a reimbursement to the General Fund for improper charges in April 2006.
- Porter was re-appointed May 24, 2006, but placed on administrative leave May 25 during an ongoing audit of improprieties.
- Audit report in July 2006 highlighted Porter's improper charges; board voted to terminate Porter on July 31, 2006 with the mayor casting the deciding vote.
- Porter sued for discrimination and retaliation; district court granted summary judgment on most claims and dismissed contract-based wrongful termination for lack of a written contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Porter had an enforceable written contract. | Porter contends a contract existed via minutes or substantial compliance. | City asserts no written contract and no proven minutes creating one. | Affirmed: no enforceable contract; Missouri requires a written contract. |
| Whether Porter's MHRA retaliation claim was causally connected to her termination. | Porter argues her July 26 discrimination complaint contributed to termination. | City asserts no knowledge of the complaint by decision makers; termination based on misconduct. | Affirmed: no genuine fact showing contributing factor; termination based on inappropriate activities. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Int'l Paper Co., 529 F.3d 828 (8th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standard de novo review; Bearden cited for standard)
- Wallace v. DTG Operations, Inc., 563 F.3d 357 (8th Cir. 2009) (MHRA retaliation causation requires contributing factor)
- Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W.3d 659 (Mo. 2009) (Mo. retaliation standard; distinguishes from federal 'but for' standard)
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. 2007) (requires showing contributing factor to adverse employment action)
- Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2006) ( Title VII/ADEA retaliation requires knowledge of protected activity)
- First Nat'l Bank of Stoutland v. Stoutland Sch. Dist. R2, 319 S.W.2d 570 (Mo. 1958) (substantial compliance doctrine; but not proven here)