John TEMPLEMIRE, Appellant, v. W & M WELDING, INC., Respondent.
No. SC 93132.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
April 15, 2014.
Opinion Modified on Court‘s Own Motion May 27, 2014.
433 S.W.3d 371
James T. Buckley of Buckley & Buckley, Sedalia, for W & M.
Gregory A. Rich, Dobson, Goldberg, Berns & Rich LLP, St. Louis, Marie L. Gockel, Bratcher Gockel & Kingston LC, Kansas City, for National Employment Lawyers Association.
Bradford B. Lear, Todd C. Werts, Lear Werts LLP, Columbia, for Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys.
Edwin H. Smith, Richard M. AuBuchon, Michael A. Moorefield, Polsinelli PC, Jefferson City, for Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Gary J. Willnauer, Peggy A. Wilson, Michael J. Kelly, Morrow Willnauer Klosterman Church LLC, Kansas City, for Missouri Organization of Defense Lawyers.
GEORGE W. DRAPER III, Judge.
John Templemire (hereinafter, “Templemire“) appeals from a jury verdict entered in favor of W & M Welding, Inc. (hereinafter, “Employer“) on Templemire‘s claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of
This Court holds that to make a submissible case for retaliatory discharge under
Factual and Procedural History
Employer hired Templemire in October 2005 to work as a painter and general laborer whose job duties included driving trucks and washing parts in the wash bay. On January 9, 2006, Templemire was injured in the course and scope of his employment when a large metal beam fell from a forklift and crushed his left foot. Templemire‘s injury required surgery and the installation of plating and screws into his foot. Templemire reported the injury to Employer and filed a workers’ compensation claim for which he received benefits.
Approximately three to four weeks following his injury, Templemire was cleared to return to work with certain restrictions. Templemire was instructed to wear a pro
As a result of these restrictions, Employer placed Templemire on “light duty” when he returned to work even though light duty work was not available when Templemire returned. Employer‘s owner, Gary McMullin (hereinafter, “McMullin“), accommodated the restrictions and created a light duty work assignment for Templemire by assigning him to be a tool room assistant to Nick Twenter (hereinafter, “Twenter“).
On November 29, 2006, Templemire remained on light duty. McMullin received a request from a customer to have a railing washed and painted for pick up later that afternoon. Templemire testified that when he arrived at work that morning, he did not speak to McMullin. Instead, Twenter informed Templemire that he would need to wash the railing, but that it was not ready. Twenter then assigned him to complete other tasks while the railing was prepared for washing. Templemire completed these tasks and returned to the job site. Around 1:50 p.m., Templemire went toward the wash bay to wash the railing. Before reaching the wash bay, Templemire stopped to rest his foot, which was infected.
During this break, McMullin confronted Templemire and cursed at him because the railing had not been washed. Templemire tried to explain the railing had just arrived in the wash bay, and he intended to wash the railing as soon as his break was over. After continuing to curse at Templemire, McMullin discharged Templemire effective immediately. Templemire asked McMullin if he was sure he wanted to fire him “because [he] was going to go home and call workman‘s [sic] comp?” to which McMullin replied, “I don‘t give a f— what you do, this is my f—ing place.”
After being terminated, Templemire contacted Liz Gragg (hereinafter, “Gragg“), the insurance adjuster on his workers’ compensation claim. Gragg subsequently contacted McMullin to discuss Templemire‘s discharge. Gragg‘s notes from her conversation with McMullin reflected that, after Gragg indicated Templemire had work restrictions that required him to take a break, McMullin “went on a [tirade] about [Templemire] ‘milking’ his injury and that he can sue him for whatever reason that is what he pays his premiums for and the [attorneys].”
Templemire subsequently filed suit against Employer pursuant to
Templemire presented evidence that McMullin yelled at him due to this injury and referred to other workers who had been injured as “whiners.” Templemire also offered testimony from former employees who were belittled as a result of their injuries and who did not receive work accommodations. One witness testified he was discharged shortly after filing a workers’ compensation claim. Another witness testified that he overheard McMullin yell at Templemire, “[a]ll you do is sit on your a— and draw my money” during the argument that resulted in Templemire‘s discharge. Templemire‘s immediate discharge was contrary to Employer‘s progressive discipline policy, which was submitted into evidence. Templemire presented evidence about another employee who received multiple disciplinary write-ups and had a drug problem but had not been discharged. By contrast, after returning to work, Templemire received his only disciplinary write-up for failing to wear a paint mask while in the paint booth. Despite this one issue, Templemire was regarded as a good employee who performed his tasks efficiently.
During the jury instruction conference, Templemire argued MAI-23.13,3 the applicable MAI-approved verdict director, misstated the law insofar as it required a finding that Templemire‘s filing of a workers’ compensation claim was the exclusive factor in Employer‘s decision to terminate him to prevail on his claim. Templemire offered an alternative instruction stating the jury could find in his favor if the filing of the workers’ compensation claim was a contributing factor to Employer‘s decision to discharge him.4 Alternatively, Templemire submitted a pretext instruction, which advised the jury that it could find exclusive causation if it found that Employer‘s stated reason for his discharge was a mere pretext, rather than the true reason stated.5 The circuit court refused both of Templemire‘s instructions and advised the jury it had to find the filing of a workers’ compensation claim was the exclusive factor considered by Employer when it terminated Templemire for him to prevail on his claim. The jury returned a verdict in Employer‘s favor. After an opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer.
Whether a jury was instructed properly is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. Edgerton v. Morrison, 280 S.W.3d 62, 65 (Mo. banc 2009). “Instructional errors are reversed only if the error resulted in prejudice that materially affects the merits of the action.” Bach v. Winfield-Foley Fire Protection Dist., 257 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Mo. banc 2008).
Generally, “[w]henever Missouri Approved Instructions contains an instruction applicable to the facts of a case, such instruction shall be given to the exclusion of any other instructions on the same subject.” Rule 70.02(b). Rule 70.02 further provides that departure from an applicable MAI constitutes error, with its prejudicial effect to be determined judicially. Rule 70.02(b)-(c). If, however, a particular MAI does not state the substantive law accurately, it should not be given. State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150, 158 (Mo. banc 2011).
Section 287.780 Causation Standard
Templemire argues the circuit court erred in refusing his verdict director that modified the applicable MAI by substituting “contributing factor” for the “exclusive cause” language. Templemire claims that submitting the MAI as written misstates the law. Templemire asserts the MAI‘s use of the phrase “exclusive cause” is contrary to the plain language of
Generally, an employer can discharge an at-will employee for any reason. Keveney v. Missouri Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Mo. banc 2010). There are exceptions and limits, however, to the at-will employment doctrine. For example, an employer cannot terminate an at-will employee for being a member of a protected class based on “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability.” Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81, 92 (Mo. banc 2010) (quoting
An at-will employee may not be terminated (1) for refusing to violate the law or any well-established and clear mandate of public policy as expressed in the constitution, statutes, regulations promulgated pursuant to statute, or rules created by a governmental body or (2) for reporting wrongdoing or violations of law to superiors or public authorities.... If an employer terminates an employee for either reason, then the employee has a cause of action in tort for wrongful discharge based on the public-policy exception.
Section 287.780‘s Historic Construction
The first case to address the statute after the legislature provided employees with a private cause of action was Mitchell v. St. Louis County, 575 S.W.2d 813 (Mo. App. E.D. 1978). In Mitchell, the plaintiff alleged her discharge was discriminatory because it occurred six months after she filed a workers’ compensation claim for a back injury. Id. at 814. The court affirmed the circuit court‘s entry of a directed verdict in the employer‘s favor after the employer demonstrated the plaintiff was discharged due to excessive absenteeism unrelated to the injury. Id. The court stated, “It is palpable that a cause of action lies only if an employee is discharged discriminatorily by reason of exercising his or her rights” under the workers’ compensation law. Id. at 815. Here, the employer presented evidence of a valid and nonpretextual motive to discharge the plaintiff. Id.
A plaintiff‘s need to demonstrate a causal connection between his or her exercise of workers’ compensation rights and the subsequent discharge was discussed in Davis v. Richmond Special Road Dist., 649 S.W.2d 252 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983). The court explained:
By its wording,
section 287.780 is, to the extent of authorizing recovery of damages by a civil action, penal in nature. The statute predicates recovery upon the discharge or discrimination of an employee for the exercise of his or her workers’ compensation rights. By its wording, the statute does not convey an intent that mere discharge of an employee gives rise to a claim against the employer. On the other hand, the statute reveals a legislative intent that there must be a causal relationship between the exercise of the right by the employee and his discharge by his employer arising precisely from the employee‘s exercise of his rights, and upon proof that the discharge was related to the employee‘s exercise of his or her rights. In its enactment ofsection 287.780 , the General Assembly did not prohibit (although it could have) the discharge of employees merely during the pendency of a claim for workers’ compensation. On the other hand, the General Assembly, by its wording ofsection 287.780 , enacted a prohibition against employers (to the extent they might be liable for damages in a separate civil proceeding) not to discriminate or discharge employees because of the employee‘s exercise of his or her rights relative to a workers’ compensation claim. Stated another way, the legislative intent conveyed by the statute is to authorize recovery for damages if, upon proof, it be shown that the employee was discriminated against or discharged simply because of the exercise of his or her rights regarding a workers’ compensation claim.
Id. at 255. (Emphasis added).
For the first time in Hansome v. Northwestern Cooperage Co., this Court set forth the elements a plaintiff must demonstrate to make a submissible case for a claim brought pursuant to
This Court reaffirmed the holding in Hansome in Crabtree v. Bugby. In Crabtree, the employer challenged the verdict director submitted by the discharged employee that directed the jury to return a verdict in her favor if it found “as a direct result of plaintiff‘s filing of a claim for [workers‘] compensation, defendant discharged plaintiff.” Crabtree, 967 S.W.2d at 71. (Emphasis added). This Court found the instruction was erroneous because it permitted the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff even though the reasons for her discharge included causes other than filing a workers’ compensation claim. Id. This Court held the jury should have been instructed that it had to find the exclusive cause of the plaintiff‘s discharge was the filing of her claim as articulated in Hansome. Id. This Court explained:
Once this Court by case law has resolved the elements of a cause of action pursuant to
section 287.780 , neither the trial court nor the court of appeals is free to redefine the elements in every case that comes before them.Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 2 . Similarly, this Court should not lightly disturb its own precedent. Mere disagreement by the current Court with the statutory analysis of a predecessor Court is not a satisfactory basis for violating the doctrine of stare decisis, at least in the absence of a recurring injustice or absurd results.
The disagreement regarding the statutory analysis was set forth in the dissenting opinion in Crabtree. The dissent stated
Hansome and its progeny remained unquestioned until this Court‘s recent decision in Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C. In Fleshner, this Court explicitly recognized for the first time the public
Stare Decisis
Templemire acknowledges the applicable holdings in Hansome and Crabtree but urges this Court to reexamine those cases in light of this Court‘s recent criticisms in Fleshner. Templemire argues Hansome and Crabtree should be reversed or modified because they erroneously analyzed
“The doctrine of stare decisis promotes security in the law by encouraging adherence to previously decided cases.” Independence-Nat. Educ. Ass‘n v. Independence Sch. Dist., 223 S.W.3d 131, 137 (Mo. banc 2007). “But, the adherence to precedent is not absolute, and the passage of time and the experience of enforcing a purportedly incorrect precedent may demonstrate a compelling case for changing course.” Watts v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, 376 S.W.3d 633, 644 (Mo. banc 2012) (quoting Med. Shoppe Intern., Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 156 S.W.3d 333, 335 (Mo. banc 2005)). “[W]here it appears that an opinion is clearly erroneous and manifestly wrong, the rule [of] stare decisis is never applied to prevent the repudiation of such a decision.” Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 94 S.W.3d 388, 390-91 (Mo. banc 2002) (quoting Novak v. Kansas City Transit, Inc., 365 S.W.2d 539, 546 (Mo. banc 1963)).
Here, adherence to stare decisis is ill-advised when one carefully examines this Court‘s sua sponte creation of the exclusive causation standard articulated in Hansome. Hansome‘s reliance on Mitchell and Davis to support an exclusive causation standard is unfounded. Neither Mitchell nor Davis contains any reference whatsoever to a heightened or exclusive causation standard for a plaintiff to prevail on a claim for retaliatory discharge under the workers’ compensation law. Mitchell did not address causation explicitly, while Davis recognized causation was an element of the claim but did not allude to an “exclusive causation” standard by any means. The dissent in Crabtree aptly described the holding in Hansome as “an aberration” in which the “exclusive” language “appears to be plucked out of thin air” with no support in the caselaw or statutory interpretation. As the learned jurist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. admonished, “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so
Legislative Inaction
Employer and its amici assert the legislature had ample opportunity to correct any misstatement by this Court of the exclusive causation standard and chose not to do so, particularly when it substantially revised the workers’ compensation laws in 2005.11 Templemire argues that legislative inaction is not a factor that trumps other rules of statutory construction, and that
If this Court rejects a litigant‘s pleas to overrule existing caselaw, a party can seek redress with the legislature to implore it to change an incorrect or otherwise undesirable interpretation of a statute. Med. Shoppe, 156 S.W.3d at 334. This Court explained the fallacy of relying upon legislative inaction as tacit approval of an interpretation of a statute:
The General Assembly‘s inaction has sometimes been interpreted to be approval of the Court‘s reading of a statute. Legislative inaction, however, can just as well mean that the forces arrayed in favor of changing the law are matched by the forces against changing it. In truth, the match does not have to be an even one, for the legislative process in our republican form of government is designed more to prevent the passage of legislation than to encourage it. An incorrect judicial interpretation of a statute may also stand simply be
cause the legislature has paid no attention to it. Thus, it is speculative to infer legislative approval from legislative inaction.
“Workers’ compensation law is entirely a creature of statute, and when interpreting the law the court must ascertain the intent of the legislature by considering the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms and give effect to that intent if possible.” Hayes v. Show Me Believers, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 706, 707 (Mo. banc 2006) (quoting Greenlee v. Dukes Plastering Service, 75 S.W.3d 273, 276 (Mo. banc 2002)). “Insight into the legislature‘s object can be gained by identifying the problems sought to be remedied and the circumstances and conditions existing at the time of the enactment.” Bachtel v. Miller County Nursing Home Dist., 110 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Mo. banc 2003).
The plain language of
Moreover, in Reed v. Sale Memorial Hosp. and Clinic, 698 S.W.2d 931, 935 (Mo. App. S.D. 1985), the court explained that
Hence, the reasoning in Hansome, and the cases it relied on, is flawed. Therefore, to the extent Hansome, Crabtree, and their progeny require a plaintiff to demonstrate his or her exercise of workers’ compensation rights was the exclusive cause of his or her discharge or discrimination, they no longer should be followed.
Appropriate Causation Standard
Because the exclusive causation standard is unsupported by the plain language of
“There is nothing in the entire field of law which has called forth more disagreement, or upon which the opinions are in such a welter of confusion” than causation. Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 41 at 263 (5th ed. 1984). This Court explained the confusion that has permeated tort law due to the different terminology used by the classic Prosser and Keeton treatise and the Restatement (Second) of Torts in Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. banc 1993). “The ‘but for’ causation test provides that ‘the defendant‘s conduct is a cause’ of the event if the event would not have occurred ‘but for’ that conduct.” Callahan, 863 S.W.2d at 860-61 (quoting Prosser, § 41 at 266). Prosser uses the term “proximate cause” to encompass all “but for” cases, except for the certain limited exception to the “two fires case” in which each of two or more causes would be sufficient, standing alone, to cause the plaintiff harm.13
By comparison, Restatement section 430 requires a plaintiff to demonstrate the de
This Court recognizes that whether one adheres to the Restatement or Prosser, this historical causation analysis typically pertains to common law tort and negligence actions as opposed to statutory actions. However, as stated in Fleshner, an exclusive causation standard is inconsistent with the proximate cause standard typically employed in tort cases. Fleshner, 304 S.W.3d at 93. Moreover, this Court cautioned that these semantic differences are of little consequence in Missouri because “under the MAI we do not use the terms 1) ‘proximate cause,’ 2) ‘but for causation,’ or 3) ‘substantial factor’ when instructing the jury.” Callahan, 863 S.W.2d at 863. See also Sundermeyer v. SSM Regional Health Services, 271 S.W.3d 552, 555 (Mo. banc 2008). Rather, “[s]uch terms are standards by which the courts determine whether a submissible case has been made and instructing the jury by use of such terms creates the potential for confusion.” Thomas v. McKeever‘s Enterprises, Inc., 388 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (internal citations omitted). “We merely instruct the jury that the defendant‘s conduct must ‘directly cause’ or ‘directly contributed to cause’ plaintiff‘s injury.” Callahan, 863 S.W.2d at 863 and Sundermeyer, 271 S.W.3d at 555.
In recent years, this Court has addressed what causation standard Missouri plaintiffs must demonstrate to make a submissible case for various forms of employment discrimination. In Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007), this Court held a plaintiff must prove his or her protected status under the MHRA was a “contributing factor” to his or her discrimination or discharge to make a submissible case. Daugherty, 231 S.W.3d at 820. This Court made it clear that Missouri‘s discrimination safeguards under the MHRA were not identical to the federal standards and could offer greater protection. Id. at 818-19. As such, this Court rejected the application of the burden-shifting analysis that McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), employed in federal discrimination cases, commonly referred to as the “motivating factor” analysis. Further, the plain statutory language of the MHRA did not require a plaintiff to prove that discrimination was a “substantial” or “determining” factor in an employment decision. Id. at 819. The MHRA is clear that if an employer considers age, disability or other protected characteristics when making an employment decision, an employee has made a submissible case for discrimination. Id.
Two years later, this Court reaffirmed the application of the “contributing factor” analysis to the plaintiff‘s MHRA retaliation claims in Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W.3d 659, 665 (Mo. banc 2009), and once again rejected the burden-shifting framework employed under McDonnell Douglas. This Court explained that although claims for discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA were contained in different sections of the act, there was no substantive difference between the claims with respect to causation. Id.
The following year, this Court addressed the appropriate standard a plaintiff must
Likewise, cases involving both the MHRA and the public-policy exception turn on whether an illegal factor played a role in the decision to discharge the employee. The evidence in both types of cases directly relates to the employer‘s intent or motivation. The employer discharges the employee, asserting a reason for the termination that may or may not be pretextual. Under the MHRA, if race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, or disability of the employee was a “contributing factor” to the discharge, then the employer has violated the MHRA. The employer‘s action is no less reprehensible because that factor was not the only reason. Similarly, if an employee reports violations of law or refuses to violate the law or public policy as described herein, it is a “contributing factor” to the discharge, and the discharge is still reprehensible regardless of any other reasons of the employer.
Taking into account the statutory language and this Court‘s precedent in other discrimination cases, this Court holds that the “contributing factor” standard should apply to causes of action that arise pursuant to
While this Court recognizes a fundamental difference between the purposes of the MHRA and the workers’ compensation laws as a whole, there can be no tolerance for employment discrimination in the workplace, be it based upon protected classes such as gender, race or age, or an employee blowing the whistle on an employer‘s illegal practices in violation of public policy, or for exercising workers’ compensation rights. Discrimination against an employee for exercising his or her rights under the workers’ compensation law is just as illegal, insidious, and reprehensible as discrimination under the MHRA or for retaliatory discharge under the public policy exception of the at-will employment doctrine.
Employer and his amici, along with this Court in Crabtree, expressed the concern that abandoning the exclusive causation standard would render the statute a “job security act.” Crabtree stated to find otherwise would permit “an employee who admittedly was fired for tardiness, absenteeism, or incompetence at work [to] still be able to maintain a cause of action for discharge if the worker could persuade a factfinder that, in addition to the other causes, a cause of discharge was the exercise of rights under the workers’ compensation law. Such a rule would encourage
This concern was legitimate at the time
Prejudice
In addition to demonstrating the circuit court erred in requiring a faulty instruction, Templemire bears the burden of demonstrating he suffered prejudice. Prejudicial error “is an error that materially affected the merits and outcome of the case.” D.R. Sherry Const., Ltd. v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 316 S.W.3d 899, 904 (Mo. banc 2010).
Here, Templemire demonstrated he suffered prejudice from the submission of the “exclusive cause” language as opposed to the “contributing factor” language in the verdict director. Templemire presented substantial evidence of Employer‘s discrimination against him due to his filing of a workers’ compensation claim that a reasonable trier of fact could determine directly caused or contributed to cause his discharge. There was evidence that McMullin repeatedly yelled at Templemire and complained to others about his injury, characterizing Templemire as a “high maintenance employee” who “s[a]t on his a— and dr[e]w my money.” Other injured workers were belittled for their injuries and described as “whiners,” did not receive accommodations when injured, and one was discharged shortly after filing a workers’ compensation claim. Templemire also presented evidence that his discharge was contrary to Employer‘s progressive discipline policy. Finally, Templemire presented evidence of McMullin‘s statements to Gragg, the workers’ compensation insurance claims adjuster, that he believed Templemire was “milking his injury” and that Templemire could sue him for whatever reason he wanted because he paid his premiums and attorneys to handle the issues.
By instructing the jury that it had to determine Templemire was discharged exclusively in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim, any evidence of Templemire‘s purported insubordination, even in the face of substantial and direct evidence of discrimination, negated Templemire‘s claim. As stated previously, the statute does not dictate such a standard and the law will not tolerate even a portion of an employer‘s motivation to be discriminatory when discharging an employee. Accordingly, Templemire is entitled to a new trial with the submission of a verdict director that instructs the jury that it must determine whether his filing of a workers’ compensation claim was a “contributing factor” to his discharge.
Pretext
Alternatively, Templemire argues that should this Court retain the exclusive causation standard, the circuit court erred in
Conclusion
The circuit court‘s judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
RUSSELL, C.J., BRECKENRIDGE, STITH and TEITELMAN, JJ., concur.
FISCHER, J., dissents in separate opinion filed.
WILSON, J., concurs in opinion of FISCHER, J.
ZEL M. FISCHER, Judge.
I respectfully dissent from the majority‘s overruling of Hansome v. Nw. Cooperage Co., 679 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. banc 1984), and Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. banc 1998). The Court is not free to decide this case, which is merely a matter of statutory construction, as though presented with the issue of causation as a matter of first impression.
What makes this country‘s legal system the envy of the modern democratic world, and what sets it apart from most others, is the reliability of the outcome of cases based on the doctrine of stare decisis. The principal opinion gives short shrift to the doctrine of stare decisis, and it fails to recognize that adherence to precedent is most important when that precedent concerns settled questions of statutory interpretation. The principal opinion adopts a new statutory interpretation of an identical statute based solely on arguments that this Court has already considered and rejected twice. I would affirm the circuit court, which dutifully followed this Court‘s prior decisions in Hansome and Crabtree.
Fourteen years later, this Court reaffirmed that interpretation of
Other than 16 years and the changing membership of this Court, nothing has
Adherence to precedent is especially vital in my view with respect to prior cases interpreting statutes. Justice Louis Brandeis said it well in 1932:
Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. This is commonly true even when the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation. But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this court has often overruled its earlier decisions.... In cases involving the Federal Constitution the position of this court is unlike that of the highest court of England, where the policy of stare decisis was formulated and is strictly applied to all classes of cases. Parliament is free to correct any judicial error; and the remedy may be promptly invoked.
Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406-10, 52 S.Ct. 443, 76 L.Ed. 815 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (internal citations omitted), overruled by Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376, 387, 58 S.Ct. 623, 82 L.Ed. 907 (1938). The United States Supreme Court has continually upheld this principle. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 138-39, 128 S.Ct. 750, 169 L.Ed.2d 591 (2008) (reaffirming a prior interpretation of a statute and stating that “stare decisis in respect to statutory interpretation has ‘special force,’ for ‘Congress remains free to alter what we have done’ “); California v. F.E.R.C., 495 U.S. 490, 499-500, 110 S.Ct. 2024, 109 L.Ed.2d 474 (1990) (expressly adopting Justice Brandeis‘s view that statutory interpretations are given greater stare decisis effect than constitutional interpretations); see also Alleyne, 133 S.Ct. at 2163 & n. 5 (stating that the force of stare decisis is at its lowest point in cases concerning procedural rules that implicate constitutional protections).
As these cases make clear, stare decisis is most essential regarding prior statutory interpretations because it is there that the rule of law and respect for the separation of powers meet. The General Assembly is presumed to rely on this Court‘s prior decisions interpreting statutes. State ex rel. Howard Elec. Co-op. v. Riney, 490 S.W.2d 1, 9 (Mo. 1973) (“[T]he General Assembly must be presumed to have accepted the judicial and administrative construction of its enactments....“); see State v. Grubb, 120 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Mo. banc 2003) (Teitelman, J., dissenting) (noting that the General Assembly is presumed to know the law in enacting statutes and stating that it had implicitly adopted a prior court of appeals decision by amending the law but not overruling the case).2
Cases interpreting statutes carry the legislature‘s approval when it does not take action to overrule them, and the legislature ratifies them by allowing them to stand while enacting particular legislation on the same subject matter. See F.E.R.C., 495 U.S. at 500 (“We are especially reluctant to reject this presumption ... in an area that has seen careful, intense, and sustained congressional attention.“). To overrule a legislative ratification of this Court‘s prior statutory interpretations is to encroach on the function of the legislature.3
The principal opinion cites various cases for the proposition that this Court may overrule its wrong decisions. Only one of those cases overruled a prior statutory interpretation—a 56-year old decision that the Court held could not be reconciled with the language of the statute. Sw. Bell Yellow Pages, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 94 S.W.3d 388, 391-92 (Mo. banc 2002). In the other cases cited by the majority, this Court either reaffirmed its prior statutory interpretation or considered only a prior constitutional interpretation or common law doctrine and not a question of statutory interpretation. See Watts v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctrs., 376 S.W.3d 633, 636 (Mo. banc 2012) (interpreting article I, section 22(a), involving the right of trial by jury); Independence-Nat‘l Educ. Ass‘n v. Independence Sch. Dist., 223 S.W.3d 131, 137 (Mo. banc 2007) (interpreting article I, section 29, involving the right to bargain collectively); Med. Shoppe Int‘l, Inc., 156 S.W.3d at 338-39 (reaffirming this Court‘s
The principal opinion also points to Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81, 92-93 (Mo. banc 2010), in support of its holding that the Court need not stick with the exclusive cause standard set out in Hansome and Crabtree. In Fleshner, the Court decided that “contributing factor” causation was better than “exclusive cause” for wrongful discharge claims based on the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine. Id. at 92-95. The “key distinction” between such wrongful termination claims and workers’ compensation retaliation claims is that public policy termination claims arise under the common law of torts. Id. at 93; Op. at 378-79. What the majority fails to acknowledge is that the common law is the exclusive prerogative of the judiciary, for which this Court is the ultimate authority.4 Although this Court has adopted the contributing factor causation standard for retaliation claims under the MHRA, as the principal opinion notes, this Court in Hill v. Ford Motor Co. merely reaffirmed its interpretation of the MHRA. 277 S.W.3d 659, 664-65 (Mo. banc 2009) (reaffirming Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814, 819-20 (Mo. banc 2007)); Op. at 383.
The holdings in Hansome and Crabtree were not based on judicially created common law doctrine, nor were they interpretations of an infrequently amended state constitution or the tough-to-amend United States Constitution. They were interpretations of a Missouri statute, on which the General Assembly is presumed to rely, and to which this Court should give the greatest stare decisis effect. State ex rel. Howard Elec. Co-op., 490 S.W.2d at 9.
The principal opinion states that this Court did not “analyze or interpret the wording of
The presumption of legislative reliance on Hansome and Crabtree has even greater weight here because the General Assembly overhauled the workers’ compensation law in 2005. Not only did it expressly
Contrary to the suggestion in the principal opinion, the 2005 amendments discredit the attempt to characterize this case as merely involving “legislative inaction.” The General Assembly took affirmative steps that demonstrate its intent to retain the exclusive cause standard. It enacted a new causation standard for determining workers’ compensation coverage of accidental injuries by expressly abrogating two of this Court‘s prior decisions by name. It could have enacted a new causation standard for workers’ compensation retaliation cases by abrogating Hansome and Crabtree. It did not. Accordingly, the principal opinion‘s failure to adhere to this Court‘s prior interpretation of
is the better rule, this Court should not usurp the legislative function by re-deciding settled questions of statutory construction due solely to a change of heart.
Finally, it should be noted that the principal opinion assumes that, if the legislature dislikes this Court‘s decision to change the law from “exclusive cause” to “contributing factor,” the General Assembly is free to abrogate this holding by passing a bill to reinstate the exclusive cause standard. Once this Court puts this burden on the legislature, however, there is no reason why the General Assembly could not go the next step and repeal
Notes
First, plaintiff was employed by defendant, and
Second, plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim, and
Third, defendant discharged plaintiff, and
Fourth, plaintiff‘s filing of the workers’ compensation claim was a contributing factor in such discharge, and
Fifth, as a direct result of such discharge plaintiff sustained damage.” Because stare decisis is at its strongest in cases involving statutory interpretation, it necessarily is at its weakest in cases involving common law doctrines. Although the rule of law still demands that this Court not lightly overrule its prior common law decisions (because it is imperative to retain them in the interests of reliance, predictability, and stability), this Court is the ultimate authority on questions of Missouri common law. In deciding whether to overrule prior decisions based solely on common law doctrine, this Court does not face the same separation of powers concerns it faces in deciding whether to overrule prior interpretations of statutes and, to a lesser degree, the United States and Missouri constitutions.