565 S.W.3d 229
Mo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Terpstra (age 55) sued LIRC/DES and a supervisor (Lambert) under the Missouri Human Rights Act, alleging failure to promote to senior claims supervisor in Aug. 2010 and retaliation by ending a temporary promotion in Mar. 2011.
- After a multi-day jury trial, the jury found for Terpstra on the discrimination claim and awarded $20,000 actual damages, $260,000 punitive damages against DES, and $20,000 punitive against Lambert; retaliation claim was lost.
- The trial court entered judgment against LIRC (as employer umbrella), awarded $731,562.30 in attorneys’ fees and $15,000 costs, and post-judgment interest; defendants moved for JNOV/new trial/remittitur and lost.
- On appeal defendants raised six points: improper voir dire (counsel instructing venire on law), admission of e-mails, admission of "me-too" witness testimony, submissibility and excessiveness of punitive damages, and the attorneys’ fees award (rates and multiplier).
- The appellate court largely affirmed: most evidentiary objections were deemed unpreserved or within trial court discretion; "me-too" testimony (at least one witness) admissible under Cox balancing; punitive damages and remittitur claims were either unpreserved or not plainly excessive; fee award (lodestar and 1.5 multiplier) upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire: counsel allegedly instructed venire on law/burden | Terpstra denied improper law teaching; trial court and parties appropriately clarified law to probe bias | Defendants: counsel improperly explained legal standards and shut down defense follow-up, prejudicing them | Claim largely unpreserved or unsupported; court found no abuse of discretion or prejudice and denied point |
| Admission of e-mails used in later demotions | Terpstra used e-mails to show pattern/context of promotions/demotions | Defendants: e-mails irrelevant (demotions occurred in 2012) and prejudicial; discovery objections too | Point dismissed for preservation defects and failure to include exhibits; not considered on merits |
| Admission of "me-too" witness testimony (multiple witnesses) | Testimony corroborates pattern/intent; admissible after individualized Cox analysis | Defendants: testimony irrelevant temporally and factually; blanket admission improper | Most objections not preserved; for preserved testimony (Berendzen) court applied Cox, found logical/legal relevance and no abuse of discretion |
| Submissibility of punitive damages instruction | Punitive damages proper given evidence of discriminatory intent/reckless indifference | Defendants: no evidence of evil motive or reckless indifference; instruction should not have been submitted | Issue not preserved in post-trial motion; point dismissed |
| Excessiveness/remittitur of punitive damages (DES $260k) | Terpstra: award within jury discretion and supported by evidence | DES: 13:1 ratio excessive; sought remittitur and constitutional reduction | Preservation defects; constitutional challenge unpreserved and not appropriate for plain-error relief; award upheld |
| Attorneys’ fees (rates and multiplier) | Requested enhanced hourly rates and 2.0 multiplier given contingency, time, public-interest nature | Defendants: rates unreasonable; multiplier creates windfall and duplicates factors used in lodestar | Trial court set reasonable hourly rates, applied 1.5 multiplier after considering risks and factors; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Dieser v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 498 S.W.3d 419 (Mo. banc 2016) (voir dire purpose and counsel latitude to probe bias)
- Cox v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, 473 S.W.3d 107 (Mo. banc 2015) ("me-too" evidence requires individualized probative/prejudice balancing)
- Berry v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 397 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. banc 2013) (factors for fee awards and use of multiplier)
- Hoeper v. Liley, 527 S.W.3d 151 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion standard for attorney-fee awards)
- Alhalabi v. Mo. Dep't of Nat. Res., 300 S.W.3d 518 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (lodestar as starting point for fee calculation)