Claims of Workplace Harassment As Retaliation Was Submissible Claim

In a recent case before the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Marcantonio vs. The Board of Curators of Lincoln University A/K/A Lincoln University, No. WD86224, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 691 (App. W.D. October 1, 2024), the HR Director for the University brought suit asserting claims of race discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), constructive discharge in violation of the MHRA, and a violation of the Missouri stat-employee whistleblower statute, § 105.055, RSMo.  After 4 days of testimony, the Circuit Court granted defendant a directed verdict, and did not permit any of the employee’s claims to reach the jury.  

On appeal, the Western District panel found that in a claim for employment discrimination, the requisite elements included either a tangible employment action or any abusive working environment, but plaintiff did not have to show both.  Plaintiff presented evidence showing a “significant change in employment status” by the defendant employer’s restructuring the plaintiff’s duties by refusing to fill existing positions which supported Plaintiff’s work responsibilities, thereby resulting in additional responsibilities and workload for Plaintiff without additional pay.  Plaintiff also presented evidence that during the same time, the defendant employer created and funded a new position, thus supporting the notion that employer’s excuse for not filling the existing positions based on financial factors were pretextual.   

The Western District found the plaintiff presented substantial evidence supporting his allegations of discrimination, and adverse actions taken against him in the wake of those complaints.  As to whether race and age were contributing factors, and whether the employer’s decision-making grounds were pretextual, comments from the defendant’s executives showing discriminatory animus based on race and age, as well as patterns of pay raises and additional stipends for other employees were admissible.  

In support of his constructive discharge claim, plaintiff had presented evidence that for over 18 months, the defendant employer:  failed to fill the HR Associate position; forced him to assume responsibility for additional clerical tasks; refused to provide him with compensation for performing those additional tasks; took away certain of plaintiff’s executive-level job duties; prevented him from using his earned leave time; and made negative comments in his performance evaluation 12 days after he filed an internal compliant of discrimination.  Then, when plaintiff advised the defendant’s new president that the new president was engaging in race discrimination by using hiring exemptions to hire exclusively employees of a particular race, plaintiff was told he would have to assume additional tasked performed by the defendant employer’s legal counsel.  At approximately the same time, and without consulting with plaintiff, the defendant employer chose to hire a full-time Title IX Coordinator, thus stripping plaintiff of more of his pre-existing job duties.  Under such circumstances, a reasonable jury could find plaintiff’s working conditions were objectively intolerable.  Moreover, the plaintiff’s evidence, which included showing the defendant employer’s proffered explanations for its conduct were pretextual, would support a finding that retaliatory animus was a motivating factor in the employer’s decisions.  

Judge Alok Ahuja, writing for the unanimous panel, held the circuit court erred in granting a directed verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff made submissible cases on the plaintiff’s claims, and the matter was remanded to circuit court for further action consistent with the opinion. This opinion reinforces that just as evidence that an employer’s stated reasons for an adverse action were pretextual can be some of the most powerful circumstantial evidence supporting a claim for discrimination, the same principle applies equally to retaliation claims.