4:23-cv-00685
E.D. Mo.Mar 19, 2024Background
- Plaintiff, A.E. Radford, a recent graduate of Potosi High School, sued the Potosi R-III School District under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and Title IX, alleging sex discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and associational discrimination.
- Radford claims she was discriminated against for not conforming to stereotypical notions of being female, specifically as a female attracted to women.
- The allegations include differential discipline, exclusion from privileges afforded to straight peers, demeaning comments by staff and students about LGBTQ+ individuals, and retaliation following complaints.
- Radford filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and timely filed this complaint after receiving a Right to Sue letter.
- Defendant moved to dismiss several claims on grounds including timeliness, the legal sufficiency of sex-based claims (arguing they are disguised sexual orientation claims), associational discrimination, and aiding/abetting liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under MHRA | Continuing violation doctrine applies; timely and untimely acts are related | Untimely acts (pre-September 2021) are barred | Only middle school discipline allegations are time-barred |
| Sex Discrimination under MHRA | Alleges discrimination was because of sex and stereotyping | Claims are really about sexual orientation, which MHRA does not cover | Plaintiff sufficiently pled discrimination based on sex |
| Associational Discrimination | Discrimination for associating with others not conforming to sex stereotypes | Cannot claim based on associating with same class; statute doesn’t protect LGBTQ+ | Sufficiently pled; MHRA allows such claims |
| Aiding and Abetting Discrimination | District attempted to manipulate complaint withdrawal, constituting aiding | Only allowed conduct, did not affirmatively aid discrimination | Dismissed; facts do not show affirmative aiding/abetting |
Key Cases Cited
- R.M.A. by Appleberry v. Blue Springs R-IV Sch. Dist., 568 S.W.3d 420 (Mo. 2019) (pleading sex discrimination claim does not require proof of sexual orientation discrimination, only that sex was a motivating factor)
- Pittman v. Cook Paper Recycling Corp., 478 S.W.3d 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (MHRA does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but distinction drawn from sex discrimination claims)
- Lampley v. Mo. Comm’n on Human Rights, 570 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. 2019) (sex stereotyping can be evidence of sex discrimination under MHRA)