Reed v. McDONALDS CORPORATION
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 72
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Reed, age 15, began working for Franchisee in Nov 2004; Emanuel joined Feb 2005 as assistant manager and allegedly harassed her.
- Emanuel allegedly made sexually explicit comments, touched Reed, and coerced Reed into sexual activity in 2005.
- Reed reported incidents to a school officer and Franchisee management in Sept 2005; Emanuel was suspended and later terminated in Oct 2005.
- Reed quit in Jan 2006; she filed MHRA discrimination charges Nov 2005, amended Nov 2005 and May 2007; MCHR issued Right to Sue letter.
- Plaintiff filed suit Aug 2007 (amended Feb 2008) alleging sexual harassment and constructive discharge against McDonald’s Corp., Franchisee, Davis, and Emanuel; Emanuel defaulted; summary judgments granted for some defendants; Reed appeals.
- Trial court awarded $25,000 against Emanuel in default judgment; appellate court partially reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Davis individually liable under MHRA? | Reed argues Davis is an employer under MHRA and can be personally liable. | Davis contends MHRA liability is limited to those who directly engaged in discriminatory acts; he did not. | Davis not liable; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Is Franchisee liable for Reed's sexual harassment claim (timeliness, unwelcome conduct, and remedial action)? | Franchisee's actions could be liable; issues of fact exist on timeliness, unwelcome conduct, and remedy. | Statute of limitations bars late acts; Franchisee promptly remedied and conduct was not unwelcome or properly proven. | Issues of fact remain; judgment reversed and remanded as to sexual harassment claim. |
| Did Reed exhaust administrative remedies for constructive discharge claim? | Constructive discharge reasonably related to charges; should be considered. | Charges did not mention constructive discharge; no exhaustion. | Constructive discharge not exhausted; summary judgment for Franchisee affirmed on this claim. |
| Was the $25,000 default judgment against Emanuel supported by the evidence? | Reed presented substantial damages for harassment and its effects. | Court may credit some damages but not the asserted amount; credibility determinations reserved to trial court. | The award was upheld; court affirmed the $25,000 default judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W.3d 659 (Mo. banc 2009) (defines individual MHRA liability for those who directly supervise or participate)
- Leeper v. Scorpio Supply IV, LLC, 351 S.W.3d 784 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (supervisor liability where managing influence over employment decisions)
- Brady v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 213 S.W.3d 101 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (supervisor harassment and related claims under MHRA)
- Cooper v. Albacore Holdings, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (individual MHRA liability for supervisors)
- Weyers v. Lear Operations Corp., 359 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2004) (supervisor status under harassment standards; influence over employment decisions)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for bench-tried cases)
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (inconsistent testimony can defeat movant's prima facie showing on summary judgment)
- Central Missouri Elec. Co-op. v. Balke, 119 S.W.3d 627 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (presumed grounds for summary judgment when trial court's reasoning is not stated)