543 S.W.3d 22
Mo.2018Background
- Mulvey worked for staffing agency Focus at Church & Dwight’s facility; she alleges sex-based harassment, complained, participated in an investigation, and was later terminated by Focus and not hired by Church.
- Mulvey filed a charge with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights; the commission issued a right-to-sue letter dated February 18, 2016 stating suit must be filed within 90 days.
- Mulvey filed suit in circuit court on May 19, 2016—91 days after the letter—asserting MHRA claims (discrimination and retaliation) against Focus, four Focus employees, and Church.
- Church and Focus moved to dismiss under the MHRA 90-day statute of limitations; before rulings, Mulvey moved for leave to amend to add common-law negligence and wrongful discharge claims against Church.
- The circuit court overruled the motions to dismiss and granted leave to amend; Church and Focus sought writs of prohibition from the Missouri Supreme Court to restrict the circuit court to vacating those orders.
- The Missouri Supreme Court concluded Mulvey’s MHRA claims were time-barred and that her proposed common-law claims were preempted by the MHRA; it made the preliminary writs permanent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mulvey filed MHRA suit within the 90-day limit | Mulvey: Rule 44.01(e) adds 3 days for mailed right-to-sue letter, making filing timely | Church/Focus: Statute starts running from date on letter; Rule 44.01(e) inapplicable; action is untimely | Held: Statute controls; Rule 44.01(e) does not apply; filing was 91 days and time-barred |
| Whether equitable tolling excuses late filing | Mulvey: Equitable tolling applies because Focus withheld personal addresses of individual defendants | Defendants: No statutory basis for tolling; addresses not required to file; statutes of limitation strictly construed | Held: No equitable tolling; plaintiff alleged no statutory disability or exception; untimely filing stands |
| Whether court erred by denying defendants’ motions to dismiss | Mulvey: Her petition states viable MHRA claims despite timing dispute | Defendants: Claims should be dismissed as a matter of law because of the 90-day bar | Held: Court exceeded authority by overruling motions to dismiss; writ granted to require dismissal |
| Whether common-law negligence and wrongful discharge claims may be added against Church | Mulvey: Amendments permitted under Rule 55.33; alleges negligent supervision/training beyond MHRA violation | Church: MHRA’s remedial scheme fully comprehends common-law remedies, preempting such claims | Held: MHRA remedies (including injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees) fully encompass common-law remedies; common-law claims preempted and amendment was an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. v. Dowd, 432 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. banc 2014) (prohibition issues and standards for writs)
- State ex rel. Holzum v. [Name omitted], 342 S.W.3d 313 (Mo. banc 2011) (prohibition proper to prevent lower court proceeding on time‑barred claim)
- State ex rel. Union Elec. Co. v. Dolan, 256 S.W.3d 77 (Mo. banc 2008) (writ lies where petition fails to state viable theory of recovery)
- State ex rel. Henley v. Bickel, 285 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. banc 2009) (avoiding unjust expense when complaint is insufficient)
- Hill v. John Chezik Imps., 797 S.W.2d 528 (Mo. App. 1990) (statutes of limitation strictly construed; courts may not engraft tolling exceptions)
- Columbia Glass & Window Co. v. Harris, 945 S.W.2d 5 (Mo. App. 1997) (Rule 44.01(e) applies only where service triggers the limitations period)
- Detling v. Edelbrock, 671 S.W.2d 265 (Mo. banc 1984) (statutory remedy preempts common-law only when statutory remedy fully comprehends common‑law remedies)
- Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. banc 2010) (analysis on preemption: compare remedies available under statute and common law)
- Noel v. AT & T Corp., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (E.D. Mo.) (federal decision cited for remedial-completeness analysis under MHRA)