492 S.W.3d 164
Mo.2016Background
- 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)