State ex rel. Washington University v. Richardson
396 S.W.3d 387
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Ms. Richardson, a Missouri MFA student, sued the University alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under MHRA for conduct by her MFA advisor from 2009–2010.
- MCHR investigated the claim and notified the University; the University sought a writ of prohibition barring further agency action.
- The trial court granted the writ, holding the MFA program was not a place of public accommodation and that MCHR could not issue a right-to-sue letter.
- Ms. Richardson intervened and both she and MCHR appealed the writ’s validity.
- The court ultimately reversed and remanded, directing the writ to be quashed, and addressed MCHR’s right-to-sue letter and the public-accommodation issue.
- The opinion construes MHRA as remedial, applying broad interpretation and considering Subia and related cases to determine openness to the public.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MFA program/Fox School is a place of public accommodation | Richardson: University is a public accommodation under MHRA | University: program is not open to the public | Yes; MFA program is a place of public accommodation |
| Whether the private university’s admission restrictions exempt it under 213.065.3 | Richardson: exemption inapplicable; open to public | MCHR/University: exemption may apply | No; open to the public includes restricted-admission programs and exemptions do not apply |
| Whether the trial court erred in barring a right-to-sue letter and barring MCHR from issuing one | Richardson/MCHR: MCHR can issue right-to-sue letter during process | Court should bar issuance | Trial court erred; writ should be quashed; MCHR may issue a right-to-sue letter |
Key Cases Cited
- Subia v. Kansas City, Missouri School Dist., 372 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) ( MHRA includes public educational institutions as places of public accommodation)
- J.B. Vending Co., Inc. v. Director of Revenue, 54 S.W.3d 183 (Mo. banc 2001) (meaning of 'public' includes subsets; open to the public scope)
- Shelter Mut. Ins. v. Director of Revenue, 107 S.W.3d 919 (Mo. banc 2003) (special-relationship/intent factors for open-to-public inquiry)
- Red Dragon Rest., Inc. v. Mo. Comm’n on Human Rights, 991 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (MHRA remedial construction; broad interpretation)
- Igoe v. Dep’t of Labor and Indus. Relations of State of Mo., 152 S.W.3d 284 (Mo. banc 2005) (administrative processing; 180/90-day timelines)