581 S.W.3d 619
Mo. Ct. App.2019Background
- Davis, an Assistant Store Manager, received a hotline complaint in Sept. 2013 alleging sexual harassment and threatening/unprofessional conduct; District Loss Prevention Manager Jaramillo investigated and found the complainant more credible than Davis.
- Davis was issued a final written warning (Oct. 29, 2013) for the Belton incident and transferred to a Blue Springs store.
- In late 2013 two Blue Springs employees complained about additional unprofessional conduct by Davis; Jaramillo investigated, found the complaints credible, and reported to Walgreens Employee Relations.
- Employee Relations recommended termination; the District Manager approved termination based on three separate misconduct incidents, two occurring after the final written warning; Davis was terminated Dec. 12, 2013.
- Davis sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (age, race, disability discrimination and retaliation). Defendants moved for summary judgment; the circuit court granted it.
- On appeal the court affirmed, concluding Davis failed to properly controvert defendants’ Rule 74.04(c) statement of uncontroverted material facts and produced no evidence that a protected characteristic or protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine dispute exists that discrimination (age, race, disability) contributed to termination | Davis contends records/exhibits (uncited below) show discriminatory animus, disparate discipline, and policy deviations | Walgreens shows non-discriminatory, documented investigations and legitimate reasons (multiple credible misconduct complaints) for discipline/termination | Held for Defendants: Davis failed to properly controvert movant’s Rule 74.04(c) facts and no evidence in the Rule 74.04(c) record shows protected characteristic was a contributing factor |
| Whether supervisors Cope and Jaramillo can be held individually liable under MHRA | Davis argues they directly oversaw/participated in termination decision and harbored animus | Defendants show termination was recommended by Employee Relations and approved by District Manager; no discriminatory motive shown | Held for Defendants: no evidence of discrimination, so supervisors cannot be liable |
| Whether retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Davis asserts termination was retaliatory for his complaints of discrimination | Defendants show no record evidence of protected activity or decision-makers’ knowledge thereof; termination based on misconduct investigations | Held for Defendants: summary judgment affirmed—no evidence of protected activity or linkage to termination |
| Procedural: Whether appellate court may consider exhibits not cited under Rule 74.04(c) | Davis asks court to consider uncited deposition excerpts/exhibits in record | Defendants and court rely on Rule 74.04(c) framework requiring numbered facts and specific citations; uncited exhibits generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances | Held: Court enforces Rule 74.04(c); uncited materials not considered; Grattan distinguished and not applicable here |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (establishes Missouri summary-judgment practice and Rule 74.04 requirements)
- Jones v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 508 S.W.3d 159 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (summary-judgment record limited to Rule 74.04(c) numbered-paragraph framework)
- Grattan v. Union Elec. Co., 151 S.W.3d 59 (Mo. 2004) (court may consider uncited deposition when parties and trial court had adequate notice; distinguished here)
- Lackey v. Iberia R-V Sch. Dist., 487 S.W.3d 57 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (courts need not sift through uncited exhibits; Rule 74.04(c) noncompliance is not waived)
- Jordan v. Peet, 409 S.W.3d 553 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (failure to respond to numbered paragraphs resulting in deemed admissions under Rule 74.04(c))