Tanisha Ross-Paige v. Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department Steven A. Gori, Michael A. Deeba, Sr., Saint Louis Board of Police Commissioners, Richard H. Gray, Bettye Battle Turner, Thomas J. Irwin, and Francis G. Slay, 492 S.W.3d 164

Background

Ross-Paige, a SLMPD officer, alleged repeated sexual harassment by Sgt. Gori and filed an internal EEO complaint in June 2011; she claimed subsequent retaliatory acts by supervisors and the Board.
After an on-duty injury in January 2012 she underwent evaluations, was removed from officer rolls, and applied for a lifetime disability pension through the Police Retirement System; she also received short-term/long-term disability payments administered by the Board’s insurer.
Ross-Paige sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act for sex discrimination and retaliation; a jury rejected discrimination but found retaliation and awarded large compensatory and punitive damages (later adjusted).
Defendants objected at trial to Jury Instruction No. 8, which listed several disjunctive retaliatory acts including that the Board “unjustly refused or delayed [her] disability claim.” The trial court overruled the objection and submitted the instruction.
On appeal the Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed whether Instruction No. 8 was supportable by substantial evidence and whether the Board could legally refuse or delay a disability pension which, by statute, is determined exclusively by the Police Retirement System (a separate entity not a defendant).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether objection to Instruction No. 8 was preserved	Ross-Paige contended defendants failed to preserve some arguments on appeal	Defendants argued they made specific objections at instruction conference and in their new-trial motion/memorandum	Preserved: court held defendants preserved the instructional-error claim
Whether Instruction No. 8 was properly submitted as a disjunctive verdict director	Instruction listed alternative retaliatory acts (including refusal/delay of disability claim); plaintiff relied on jury to pick any act	Defendants argued one disjunct (delay/refusal of disability pension) lacked substantial evidence and misstated law because Board lacked authority over pension decisions	Court held the disjunctive instruction was improper because at least one alternative (Board refusing/delaying disability pension) lacked substantial evidence and misdirected the jury
Whether the Board could lawfully refuse or delay a disability pension	Ross-Paige later argued the jury could infer the Board and Retirement System acted together or that the Board delayed her pension	Defendants pointed to statutory and historical authority vesting exclusive original jurisdiction and factual determinations over pension claims in the Police Retirement System, not the Board	Held: as a matter of law the Police Retirement System, not the Board, had exclusive authority; no evidence showed the Board delayed/ refused the pension claim
Prejudice from instructional error and need for retrial	Ross-Paige argued jury could have relied on supported alternatives	Defendants argued the verdict could have rested on the unsupported alternative and thus was prejudicial	Held: reversible error — cannot determine which disjunct the jury relied on; remanded for new trial (court did not reach juror-misconduct point)

Key Cases Cited

Templemire v. W & M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371 (Mo. banc 2014) (standard for de novo review of jury instructions)
Herrington v. Medevac Med. Response, Inc., 438 S.W.3d 417 (Mo. App. 2014) (each alternative in a disjunctive instruction must be supported by substantial evidence)
Hayes v. Price, 313 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. banc 2010) (definition of substantial evidence for instruction submissibility)
State ex rel. Lambert v. Flynn, 154 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. banc 1941) (distinguishing Board and Police Retirement System roles)
State ex rel. Police Retirement Sys. of City of St. Louis v. Murphy, 224 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. banc 1949) (Police Retirement System has exclusive jurisdiction over pension claims)
State ex rel. Eagleton v. Hughes, 194 S.W.2d 307 (Mo. banc 1946) (Board’s role in initiating pension applications is ministerial)