519 S.W.3d 526
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Beverly W. Wilkins, a white non‑tenure-track instructor at Harris‑Stowe State University (HSSU), taught there from 2001–2009 and earned about $62,776 plus summer pay; she had strong evaluations and seniority over some African‑American colleagues.
- In 2010, after budget cuts and a department reorganization, interim Dean Dr. Latisha Smith (African‑American) recommended Wilkins’s termination; the Board approved termination and simultaneously planned to replace the terminated faculty, making the reorganization effectively budget‑neutral.
- Wilkins was terminated contrary to HSSU’s reduction‑in‑force policy (which required termination by seniority), was later fired from a summer class and labeled for “inappropriate activities,” and the university failed to investigate her discrimination complaint; the Board also deleted Dr. Smith’s email account in violation of a preservation order.
- Wilkins sued under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), alleging race discrimination and retaliation; a jury found for Wilkins and awarded $1,350,000 in compensatory and $3,500,000 in punitive damages.
- On appeal the Board raised (1) instructional error as to future damages, (2) improper use of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 174.150 evidence, (3) excessiveness of compensatory damages, (4) submissibility of punitive damages, and (5) excessiveness of punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed and awarded appellate attorney’s fees to Wilkins.
Issues
| Issue | Wilkins' Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury instruction including "and is reasonably certain to sustain in the future" (future damages) was proper | Wilkins offered testimony of continuing emotional distress, loss of reputation, and plans/expectation to work for many more years; harms support future economic and emotional damages | Evidence of future damages was speculative, sparse; failure to seek other employment undermines future wage claim | Instruction upheld: evidence supported submission of future damages; no instructional error |
| Whether admitting and showing Mo. Rev. Stat. § 174.150 to the jury was reversible error | Wilkins relied on testimony showing the Board did not follow the statutory process and used it to prove procedural unfairness and impact | Displaying the statute misled the jury and was irrelevant because Wilkins did not bring a § 174.150 claim | Waived: Board failed to object at trial when the deposition/statute were presented, so appellate claim was not preserved |
| Whether the compensatory award ($1,350,000) was grossly excessive and should be remituted | Award reflects lost income, future emotional distress, reputational harm, and mitigation evidence was for the jury to weigh | Award is excessive given testimony that Wilkins might only have worked 10–12 more years and did not apply for some alternative positions | No abuse of discretion: evidence supports both economic and significant intangible damages; remittitur denied |
| Whether punitive damages submission/remittitur ($3,500,000) was improper or violates due process | Wilkins pointed to willful/reckless discrimination, retaliatory firing from summer class, deletion of emails, and deviation from policies—supporting punitive damages | Board argued conduct was incompetence, not malicious; also failed to preserve submissibility challenge | Submission submissible challenge waived (no directed verdict motion on punitive damages); punitive award upheld as not grossly excessive (approx. 3:1 ratio; reprehensibility supported) |
| Whether Wilkins is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees under the MHRA | Wilkins is prevailing party and previously recovered fees; no special circumstances to deny appellate fees | Board disputed reasonableness of portions of fee request (e.g., work caused by Wilkins not dismissing HSSU) | Fees awarded: appellate attorneys’ fees fixed at $35,602.56; remand unnecessary for fee hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnston v. Saladino Mech., 504 S.W.3d 138 (Mo. App. W.D.) (final‑judgment requirement for appeal)
- Buemi v. Kerckhoff, 359 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. banc) (appeal rights and Rule 74.01 discussion)
- Howard v. City of Kan. City, 332 S.W.3d 772 (Mo. banc) (preservation of instructional‑error objections)
- Walsh v. City of Kan. City, 481 S.W.3d 97 (Mo. App. W.D.) (preservation of submissibility challenge for punitive damages)
- Soto v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 502 S.W.3d 38 (Mo. App. W.D.) (MHRA recoverable emotional distress damages)
- Hurst v. Kan. City, Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. App. W.D.) (mitigation does not negate submissibility of damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (due process limits on punitive damages; guideposts for excessiveness)