376 S.W.3d 16
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wyman and fifteen other current or former Fulton State Hospital employees sue Missouri Department of Mental Health and COO Martin-Foreman for retaliation after workers’ compensation claims.
- Petition seeks damages for each plaintiff and injunctive relief to stop removals/relocations and reinstate discriminated employees.
- Department and Martin-Foreman move to dismiss on sovereign immunity; trial court grants the motion.
- Court holds: damages claims against the Department are barred by sovereign immunity; Martin-Foreman is not an “employer” under the Workers’ Compensation Law.
- Equitable relief claims may survive; injunction claim reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do damages claims against the Department fall under sovereign immunity? | Wyman relies on the Act and §105.850 to waive immunity. | Department argues no waiver; immunity preserved by §537.600. | Damages claims barred by sovereign immunity. |
| Is equitable injunctive relief barred by sovereign immunity? | Injunction to enforce compliance with §287.780 may not be barred. | Immunity should bar relief for damages and related injunctions. | Injunction claim not barred; reversed and remanded. |
| Is Martin-Foreman an ‘employer’ or personally liable under the Act? | Martin-Foreman could be an employer or co-employee with preserved remedies. | Martin-Foreman is not an employer under §287.030. | Martin-Foreman not an employer; damages against her affirmed/appropriate grounds not found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krasney v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 765 S.W.2d 646 (Mo.App. W.D.1989) (§105.850 preserves sovereign immunity; no waiver by inclusion of state in §287.030)
- King v. Probate Division, 958 S.W.2d 92 (Mo.App. E.D.1997) (§105.850 preserves immunity; reading §287.780 with 105.850 does not waive immunity)
- Bachtel v. Miller County Nursing Home District, 110 S.W.3d 799 (Mo. banc 2003) (intent to waive immunity may be express via statute, not just explicit words)
- Jones v. State Hwy. Comm'n, 557 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. banc 1977) (abrogated sovereign immunity; later statutory framework reestablished with waivers)
- Robinson v. Hooker, 323 S.W.3d 418 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (strict construction of the Act’s terms; employer definition does not widen protections)
- State ex rel. Kansas City Symphony v. State, 311 S.W.3d 272 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (mandamus may compel ministerial duties despite sovereign immunity)