Thomas v. McKeever's Enterprises, Inc.
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1279
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellants Laura Thomas and Adaire Stewart, both over 40, were discharged from McKeever’s Price Chopper on July 16, 2008.
- Appellants filed MHRA age discrimination petitions on August 12, 2009; the two cases were consolidated for trial.
- A jury trial began January 24, 2011; MAI 31.24 was given as the verdict director.
- Respondent’s closing argued the issue was whether age would have allowed Appellants to remain employed; Appellants’ rebuttal referenced but-for causation and the court issued a curative instruction.
- The jury returned verdicts for Respondent; Appellants moved for a new trial; the trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the curative instruction misstated the law | Thomas/Stewart contend the curative instruction required but-for causation, conflicting with MAI 31.24. | McKeever's asserts but-for causation is correct; curative instruction accurately informed the law. | Instruction misstated law; reversed for new trial. |
| Whether MAI 31.24 was properly applied and mandatory | MAI 31.24 was the applicable instruction and should have governed to exclusion of other wording. | MAI allows curative measures and does not require excluding other speech in rebuttal. | MAI 31.24 mandatory; deviation prejudicial. |
| Preservation of error for appellate review | Error preservation was properly preserved despite no objection at trial due to curative instruction ruling. | Objections were not raised at trial; issue not preserved. | Issue preserved under the circumstances; review permitted. |
| Whether but-for causation applies in MHRA age-discrimination cases | Contributing-factor standard should apply per MAI 31.24; but-for is not required. | But-for causation is the standard in Missouri law for causation in fact. | Court discusses but-for vs contributing-factor; ultimately reversal due to MAI deviation; standard discussed but not outcome determining. |
Key Cases Cited
- Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. banc 1993) (but-for causation cited in Missouri traditional torts)
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (MHRA discrimination requires contributing factor; age as factor suffices)
- Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. banc 2010) (MHRA discrimination framework; age as contributing factor)
- Sundermeyer v. SSM Reg’l Health Servs., 271 S.W.3d 552 (Mo. banc 2008) (MAI terminology; cautions against but-for in instructions)
- In re H.L.L., 179 S.W.3d 894 (Mo. banc 2005) (standard for motions for new trial; abuse of discretion review)
- Syn, Inc. v. Beebe, 200 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (MAI applicability and exclusive instruction principle)
- Mathes v. Sher Express, L.L.C., 200 S.W.3d 97 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (MAI instructions must be given to the exclusion of other instructions)
- Abbott v. Missouri, Gas Energy, 375 S.W.3d 104 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (prejudice on deviation from MAI not presumed without showing prejudice)