Waller v. Blast Fitness Group, LLC, 4:15-cv-00586

Plaintiff Terry Waller applied for a personal-training job with Blast Fitness; regional manager Edgar Thompson offered the job but conditioned it on sexual favors; Waller refused and was not hired.
Waller filed charges with the Missouri Commission and the EEOC and sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) for quid pro quo and hostile-work-environment sexual harassment; negligent-infliction claim later dismissed.
Defendants removed to federal court; defaults entered as to Blast Fitness entities and Thompson; court previously found liability on the quid pro quo claim and dismissed the hostile-work-environment claim because Waller never became an employee.
At a damages hearing (Defendants did not appear), Waller testified to physical, emotional, and financial harms (asthma relapse, hospitalization, depression, social isolation, employment difficulties) and submitted wage/economic-loss evidence and fee affidavits.
The court awarded economic damages supported by evidence, assessed non-economic (emotional distress) damages, and imposed punitive damages against Thompson and vicariously against Blast Fitness; court also awarded reduced attorney’s fees and full costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Liability for quid pro quo sexual harassment under MHRA	Waller: Thompson conditioned hiring on sex, creating a tangible employment action making employer liable	Thompson/Blast Fitness: (No timely opposition presented; defendants defaulted)	Court found Thompson and Blast Fitness liable on quid pro quo theory (default liability)
Hostile-work-environment claim viability	Waller: alternative MHRA claim for hostile environment	Defendants: (default/no defense); court noted legal standard requires workplace employment	Court dismissed hostile-work-environment claim because Waller never commenced employment with Blast Fitness
Compensatory and punitive damages amounts	Waller: economic losses ~$28,436; sought ~$1,000,000 emotional distress; $1.5M punitive	Defendants: no contest due to default; court evaluated evidence and comparators	Court awarded $28,435.72 economic; $45,000 emotional distress; $75,000 punitive; total damages $148,435.72, joint and several against Thompson and Blast Fitness
Attorney’s fees and costs under MHRA	Waller: requested $94,728.40 fees and $2,338.63 costs; submitted lodestar and local rate data	Defendants: no opposition	Court applied MHRA factors and reduced fees by 50% to $47,364.20; awarded full costs $2,338.63

Soto v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 502 S.W.3d 38 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (emotional-distress awards under MHRA may be based on testimony or inferred from circumstances)
Van Den Berk v. Mo. Comm’n on Human Rights, 26 S.W.3d 406 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) (intangible damages require individualized consideration; goal is fair and reasonable compensation)
Diaz v. Autozoners, LLC, 484 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (punitive damages under MHRA require clear and convincing proof of culpable mental state; employer vicarious-liability framework)
Leeper v. Scorpio Supply IV, 351 S.W.3d 784 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011) (employer liability and affirmative defense analysis for supervisory harassment)
Gilliland v. Mo. Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. 2009) (factors guiding attorney-fee awards under MHRA; degree of success most important)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar and factors for reasonable attorney’s fees)
Alhalabi v. Mo. Dep’t of Nat. Resources, 300 S.W.3d 518 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (lodestar as starting point for fee awards)
Quigley v. Winter, 598 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirming reduction of fees where complexity did not warrant requested amount)
Banks v. Slay, 875 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2017) (citing Quigley approvingly on fee reductions)
Ferguson v. Curators of Lincoln Univ., 498 S.W.3d 481 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (trial court presumed expert in setting attorney’s fees and may fix amount without additional evidence)