Hill v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 25 June 2012
• Docket Number: Nos. ED 96207,ED 96174.,s. ED 96207
• Parties: William Patrick HILL and Jacques Hughes, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross–Respondents, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, Defendant, and James Murphy, in his Official Capacity as Sheriff for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Defendant/Respondent/Cross–Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

371 S.W.3d 66

William Patrick HILL and Jacques Hughes, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross–Respondents,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, Defendant,
and
James Murphy, in his Official Capacity as Sheriff for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Defendant/Respondent/Cross–Appellant.

Nos. ED 96207, ED 96174.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Two.

May 1, 2012.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to
Supreme Court Denied June 25, 2012.

Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 14, 2012.

[371 S.W.3d 69]

Jerome J. Dobson, Jonathan C. Berns, Dobson, Goldberg, Berns & Rich, LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross–Respondents.

Christine L. Hodzic, Nancy R. Kistler, Assistant City Counselor, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant and Defendant/Respondent/Cross–Appellant.

KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, Presiding Judge.

In this hostile work environment lawsuit, which was brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA),¹ the jury returned verdicts in plaintiffs' favor assessing actual and punitive damages. The trial court entered a judgment in plaintiffs' favor in which it awarded actual damages consistent with the jury's verdicts, but it granted a remittitur of the punitive damage awards and entered judgment for a lower amount of punitive damages. It also awarded plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs. Both parties appeal. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs William Patrick Hill and Jacques Hughes are African Americans who were employed as deputy sheriffs in the office of defendant, the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis. Plaintiff Hughes was employed as a deputy sheriff from April 1994 through April 1996 and again from August 2001 through April 2008. Plaintiff Hill was employed as a deputy sheriff beginning in February 1995 through the time of trial. In that workplace, beginning in approximately 2001, white deputies used racial slurs in addressing African–American deputies; white supervisors discriminated in work assignments on the basis of race by placing African–American deputies in the more difficult and less desirable positions; segregated seating occurred during roll call; and white supervisors took racially disparate disciplinary actions by disciplining African–American deputies for certain infractions while failing to discipline white deputies for the same behavior.

[371 S.W.3d 70]

On July 18, 2006, a supervisor made a hangman's noose from a rope and hung it in the prisoner holding cells in the Civil Courts building where plaintiffs were working as deputy sheriffs. A white supervisor told African–American prisoners who walked by the open door to the room where the noose was hanging, “This is what you gonna get if you act up.” Plaintiff Hill saw the noose while it was hanging in the holding cell area. Plaintiff Hughes saw the noose in a cell phone photo shown to him by plaintiff Hill, who told him it was in the holding cell area. He saw it again in the hands of a lieutenant after the noose had been taken down. Plaintiffs Hill and Hughes testified that various supervisors later portrayed the noose as a “prank” or a “joke.” On several occasions, plaintiffs and other employees complained to supervisors about the racially hostile work environment, but in response to these complaints, the supervisors either failed to take any action or deviated from their own investigative procedures.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, which as amended, sought damages from the City of St. Louis ² and Sheriff James Murphy, in his official capacity as Sheriff of the City of St. Louis, for race discrimination and retaliation in violation of the MHRA. The trial was bifurcated pursuant to section 510.263. The trial court submitted the case to the jury on plaintiffs' claims of hostile work environment and retaliation. On the hostile work environment claims, the jury found in plaintiffs' favor and assessed plaintiff Hill's actual damages at $25,000.00 and plaintiff Hughes's actual damages at $125,000.00. It found defendant liable for punitive damages to each plaintiff. However, it found in defendant's favor on plaintiffs' retaliation claims. After the second phase of trial, the jury assessed punitive damages at $350,000.00 for each plaintiff.

The trial court entered a judgment awarding actual damages in the amounts assessed by the jury. However, it ordered remittitur of the punitive damage awards and entered a judgment awarding $75,000.00 in punitive damages to each plaintiff. The trial court also awarded $326,000.00 in attorney's fees and $11,279.68 in costs to plaintiffs.

Both parties appeal. Defendant challenges (1) the trial court's ruling that allowed plaintiffs' counsel to assert in closing argument that Sheriff Murphy would not have to personally pay damages on any judgment in plaintiffs' favor; (2) the trial court's rulings that allowed certain expert testimony; and (3) the trial court's verdict-directing instructions on the hostile work environment counts. Plaintiffs challenge the trial court's remittitur of punitive damages and the amount of the attorney's fees award.³

DISCUSSION

To prevail on a hostile work environment claim, plaintiffs were required to prove that (1) they were members of a protected group; (2) they were subjected to unwelcome protected group harassment; (3) their membership in a protected group was a contributing factor in the harassment; and (4) a term, condition, or privilege of their employment was affected by

[371 S.W.3d 71]

the harassment. Alhalabi v. Mo. Dept. of Natural Resources, 300 S.W.3d 518, 527 (Mo.App.2009). In addition, to recover punitive damages, plaintiffs were required to adduce “clear and convincing proof of a culpable mental state, either from a wanton, willful, or outrageous act, or from reckless disregard for an act's consequences such that an evil motive may be inferred.” Id. at 529.See also Leeper v. Scorpio Supply IV, LLC, 351 S.W.3d 784, 796–97 (Mo.App.2011). Reckless disregard can be shown by evidence that an employer knew of the harassment and failed to adequately remedy the situation, Alhalabi, 300 S.W.3d at 529, or by evidence of the failure to properly investigate complaints of discrimination, Leeper, 351 S.W.3d at 797.

DEFENDANT'S APPEAL I. Closing Argument—Sheriff Murphy's Personal Financial Liability

In his first point, defendant asserts that trial court erred in permitting plaintiffs to argue in closing argument that Sheriff Murphy had no personal financial liability on the judgment “because such argument is a violation of the collateral source rule and is irrelevant in that the argument improperly injected finances into the liability stage of the trial.” We disagree.

The petition named Sheriff Murphy as a defendant in his official capacity as sheriff. During voir dire, plaintiffs' counsel asked about the venire's understanding that Sheriff Murphy was being sued in his official capacity but not in his individual capacity. During trial, plaintiffs called Sheriff Murphy in their own case. Sheriff Murphy testified on direct that he understood that he was not being sued personally. Over defendant's “argument” objection, Sheriff Murphy testified that he had no personal or financial liability or exposure in the case.

Before closing argument in the liability phase of the trial, defendant asked the trial court to prevent plaintiffs' counsel from arguing that Sheriff Murphy would not be personally liable for any damages awarded by the jury because he was only being sued in his official capacity. The trial court declined to enter this order. During plaintiffs' closing argument, counsel stated, “I want to make sure you understand that Sheriff Murphy has no personal financial liability in this matter.” Defense counsel objected on the grounds that (1) it misstated the law,⁴ (2) “who is liable is not in evidence,” ⁵ and (3) “it's collateral source.” The trial court overruled the objections and instructed the jury to be guided by its recollection of the evidence. Plaintiffs' counsel then argued that if the jury entered a judgment against Sheriff Murphy in his official capacity, he would “not pay any part of it out of his own pocket.”

The trial court has broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument. Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 863 S.W.2d 852, 870 (Mo. banc 1993). We review the trial court's ruling

[371 S.W.3d 72]

for an abuse of discretion, and we will not reverse unless the ruling resulted in prejudice. Id.; Powderly v. South County Anesthesia Assoc., 245 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Mo.App.2008).

A. Collateral Source

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's objection to this argument because it was a violation of the collateral source rule. We disagree. The collateral source rule is a “combination of rationales applied to a number of different circumstances to determine whether evidence of mitigation of damages should be precluded from admission.” Washington by Washington v. Barnes Hosp., 897 S.W.2d 611, 619 (Mo. banc 1995). In the argument under this point, defendant does not explain how the evidence that Sheriff Murphy was not personally liable falls within the collateral source doctrine, much less why that doctrine would apply to the closing argument in this case.

Instead, defendant primarily relies on Rytersky v. O'Brine, 335 Mo. 22, 70 S.W.2d 538 (1934), to support his argument. Rytersky does not aid defendant. In Rytersky, the plaintiff's attorney promised the jury in closing argument that plaintiff would look to the insurance company alone to collect the judgment, and the defendant would not have to pay anything. The Missouri Supreme Court determined that this argument was improper and prejudicial for several reasons: First, the issues of a defendant's ability to pay a judgment or a defendant's insurance coverage are irrelevant to the questions of negligence or the amount of damages; second, it is “reprehensible” to “instill into the jurors' minds the idea that a defendant is not really interested in the outcome of the case” because...