Timothy Walsh v. City of Kansas City, Missouri
481 S.W.3d 97
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Walsh was a Kansas City Water Department mechanic who, after testifying in an EEO investigation of his supervisor Dan Crabtree (April 2011), alleged multiple acts of retaliation by Crabtree beginning in May 2011 (notably denial of out-of-class work on May 4 and May 12, 2011).
- The City’s EEO Office investigated and concluded Crabtree knew of Walsh’s participation and retaliated; Crabtree received a 40-hour unpaid suspension in Sept. 2012.
- Walsh sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA); he moved for partial summary judgment on liability for the May 2011 incidents and the court granted it, leaving damages (including punitive) to the jury.
- The jury initially awarded $524 compensatory damages and no punitive damages on Verdict Form A, returned an incomplete Verdict Form B, and after the court (with both counsel’s agreement) resubmitted both forms, the jury again awarded $524 and then $75,000 punitive damages on Form A; Form B was resolved for the City.
- The City appealed five points (summary judgment, resubmission of Form A, denial of directed verdict, punitive damages submission, attorney fees). The appellate court affirmed on all points and remanded only to determine appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Partial summary judgment re: May 2011 retaliation | Walsh: undisputed facts (participation, denial of WOC, Crabtree knew, City admitted retaliation) entitle him to judgment on liability | City: genuine factual disputes remained about Crabtree's knowledge and motives; violation of City policy ≠ per se MHRA violation | Affirmed: facts were admitted and undisputed; Daugherty contributing-factor standard met; partial SJ proper |
| 2. Resubmission of Verdict Form A | Walsh: forms were defective, parties agreed to resubmit; court properly cured jury confusion | City: first Form A clearly showed jury denied punitive damages; resubmission impermissibly allowed reversal of jury intent | Affirmed: original verdicts were defective/confusing; court may require correction; City failed to timely preserve objection |
| 3. Denial of directed verdict on May 2011 claims | Walsh: evidence (and admissions) made a submissible case of causation and damages (denial of opportunities) | City: insufficient evidence of causal link and of damages from the May incidents | Affirmed: viewing evidence in plaintiff's favor, submissible case exists; directed verdict properly denied |
| 4. Submission of punitive damages | Walsh: punitive issue submissible; evidence supported jury consideration | City: no evidence of evil motive or reckless indifference; submissibility not shown | Affirmed / not reviewed on merits: issue not preserved — City failed to move for directed verdict on punitive damages with required specificity |
| 5. Reasonableness of attorney fees | Walsh: fees justified; claims arose from common nucleus of operative facts so fees need not be reduced for limited success | City: award unreasonable; should be reduced proportionally to limited success | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; Gilliland permits full fee award where claims overlap; remand for appellate fee reasonableness determination |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid–Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard)
- Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Prods., Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (Mo. banc 1995) (MHRA retaliation requires proof of reprisal causing damages; MHRA retaliates "in any manner")
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (MHRA uses contributing-factor standard)
- Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W.3d 659 (Mo. banc 2009) (applies contributing-factor standard to MHRA retaliation)
- Barekman v. City of Republic, 232 S.W.3d 675 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (retaliation requires purposeful reprisal because of protected activity)
- Gilliland v. Missouri Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. banc 2009) (attorney-fees factors; fees may not be reduced where claims share common core of facts)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (fee-reduction guidance for partial success)