Hurst v. Kan. City

Decision Date19 August 2014
Docket NumberNo. WD 76534.,WD 76534.
Citation437 S.W.3d 327
PartiesJanet HURST, Respondent, v. KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Martin M. Meyers, for respondent.

Shana J. Long, for appellant.

Before Division One: JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Presiding, Judge, KAREN KING MITCHELL, Judge and ANTHONY REX GABBERT, Judge.

JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge.

Appellant Kansas City, Missouri School District (“the District”) appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County in favor of Respondent Janet Hurst in the amount of $247,083.78 in actual damages and $200,000.00 in punitive damages. The award resulted from a suit filed by Respondent alleging that the District discriminated against her because of her age when it eliminated her position as a school psychological examiner and failed to hire her for the new reconstituted position of educational diagnostician. For the following reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict reflects the following. In 2005, Respondent began working for the District as a school psychological examiner (“SPE”) in the Exceptional Education Department. SPEs administered tests to students to evaluate whether the students qualified for special educational assistance. After administering the tests, SPEs would write reports explaining their findings. SPEs would then re-evaluate the students that qualified for assistance every three years.

During the 20092010 school year, the Exceptional Education Department Director, Dr. Christine Hernandez, the Lead School Psychologist,1 Joanne McNellis, and the Exception Educational Compliance and Operations Officer, Waukita Williams, decided changes needed to be made to the SPE position. In April of 2010, the District notified all SPEs, including Respondent, that it was reconstituting the SPE position for the 20102011 school year. The new, reconstituted position would be called an educational diagnostician (“ED”) and would purportedly involve a counseling component not previously required of the SPEs. All former SPEs had the opportunity to interview for the new ED position but were not guaranteed a position. At a meeting regarding the new position, the District told the SPEs that the hiring decisions would be based on the interview as well as their previous work performance. The SPEs were also informed there would be twelve ED positions available.

A four-person committee interviewed the applicants for the ED position. The four-person committee consisted of Dr. Hernandez, McNellis, Williams, and a representative from the human resources department. Prior to the interviews, the interviewing committee members drafted twelve questions with model answers. During the interviews, the committee members asked each applicant the predetermined questions and then individually scored the applicant's answer on a scale of 0 to 3. At the conclusion of the interviews, the applicants' scores were totaled and converted into percentages. Dr. Hernandez originally stated that applicants had to score 80% or higher on the interview in order to qualify for an ED position. Dr. Hernandez later lowered the required minimum score to 60%. The District did not inform the applicants that they would be required to score a certain percentage on the interview to obtain an ED position.

At the time of the interviews, Respondent was sixty-one (61) years old. She interviewed for the ED position but received a score of 42%. Dr. Hernandez notified her in June 2010 that she would not be hired as an ED. In July, Respondent received a letter informing her that although she “met the minimum qualifications for the [ED] position,” the District had “selected other candidates whom [it] believe[d] more closely match[ed] the requirements of the position and needs of the students.” The letter further informed Respondent that if the District found that she was qualified for a position in the future, she would be contacted.

In August, the District notified Respondent that it was assigning her to teach a fifth grade class at a “turn-around school.” 2 Respondent received the notification two weeks before the school year was scheduled to begin. Respondent was concerned about her ability to teach the class because she had not taught in the classroom for thirty-seven years. Ultimately, she decided that she could not do an adequate job teaching the class and she retired from the District.

In August 2011, Respondent filed a petition alleging age discrimination in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). In particular, Respondent alleged that age was a contributing factor in the District's decision to eliminate her SPE position and in its failure to hire her for the ED position.

In 2013, the case proceeded to trial. At trial, the District's 2009 performance assessment of Respondent was offered into evidence. Respondent received marks of exceeds expectations or meets expectations in all categories assessed. The assessment also recommended Respondent for rehire for the 20102011 school year. Further testimony indicated that Respondent wrote very detailed reports and was considered one of the top SPEs in the District by her co-workers.

Evidence regarding the interviewing process was also introduced at trial. Such evidence included the scores given and the notes taken by each interviewing committee member during the applicants' interviews. The notes reflected that Respondent received lower scores on some questions despite her giving the same or better answers than younger applicants. The evidence further established that, as a result of the interview, the four eldest applicants, one of which was Respondent, were not hired while the four youngest applicants were offered ED positions.

Respondent further adduced evidence that the ED position was substantially the same as the SPE position. Michael Champan and Lori Jackson–Thurman, two former SPEs that were hired for the ED position, testified that the ED position differed from the SPE position only in minor, procedural aspects. They further testified that the District never implemented the counseling component and that the District never filled all the ED positions for the 20102011 school year. Jackson–Thurman offered additional testimony that McNellis told her that McNellis would “kill her” if she helped an older SPE prepare for the interview. Respondent likewise testified that, early in the 20092010 school year, McNellis instructed her not to help a new SPE, who was then sixty-one years old, learn how to score certain tests.

Thomas Levin, a former principal in the District, also testified on behalf of Respondent. The District objected to Levin testifying at trial. The trial court overruled the objection after finding that there was sufficient commonality between Levin's and Respondent's experiences. Levin testified that he had to re-interview for his position for the 20102011 school year due to the District's downsizing. He further explained that Dr. Hernandez performed his final performance assessment and that he had an age discrimination action currently pending against the District.

Also during Levin's testimony, an early draft of the District's Transformation Plan (“the Draft”) was introduced into evidence as Exhibit 156. Levin testified that he downloaded the Draft from the District's website after the District advised him to become familiar with it. The District objected to the Draft's admission on foundational grounds. The District further objected to the Draft on the basis that community members were permitted to contribute to the Draft. The District argued that because of the community's participation, the language in the Draft about which Levin was going to testify could not be attributed to the District. The trial court overruled the objections, and a stipulation 3 was read to the jury explaining that District employees and community members contributed to the Draft, and the Draft was not the final plan approved and adopted by the District.

Levin then testified that page 66 of the Draft provided: “In times of strong change, it is often senior staff who hold onto the old culture of an organization. The District encourages the retirement of those who know that they may not be able to keep up with the changes necessary to raise student achievement.” On cross-examination, Levin testified that he knew that members of the community participated in the making of the Draft and that he was unsure whether the District or a member of the community drafted the language that appeared on page 66.

As to damages, Respondent testified that because she was not offered the ED position, she lost $247,083.78 in wages and benefits. However, she did explain that she had been employed since she retired from the District and had earned $106,134.64. She further testified that she was very upset and embarrassed when she was not hired as an ED, especially in light of the fact that she was in the process of purchasing a new home.

Ultimately, the District's motions for directed verdict were denied, and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury found in favor of Respondent and awarded her $247,083.78 in actual damages and $200,000.00 in punitive damages. Post-trial, the District filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial. The District also filed a motion for remittitur alleging the damages award was excessive. Respondent opposed the District's motions and filed her own post-trial motion for equitable relief requesting that she be reinstated to an ED position with the District. On June 3, 2013, the trial court denied the District's motion for JNOV and motion for remittitur, but granted Respondent's request for reinstatement. The District now raises eight...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Ferguson v. Curators of Lincoln Univ.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 31 Mayo 2016
    ...verdict and denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are essentially the same.” Hurst v. Kansas City, Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 S.W.3d 327, 336 (Mo.App.W.D. 2014) (quoting DeWalt v. Davidson Serv./Air, Inc., 398 S.W.3d 491, 498 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013) ). “To defeat either motion, th......
  • SKMDV Holdings, Inc. v. Green Jacobson, P.C.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 12 Abril 2016
    ...is not a complete bar to recovery, but rather affects the measure of damages that is recoverable.” Hurst v. Kansas City, Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 S.W.3d 327, 336–37 (Mo.App.W.D. 2014) (quoting Hertz Corp. v. RAKS Hospitality, Inc., 196 S.W.3d 536, 548 (Mo.App.E.D. 2006) ). We agree with DataVeri......
  • Jones v. City of Kan. City
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 13 Febrero 2019
    ...Alton v. Missouri Department of Public Safety , 456 S.W.3d 134, 137 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (citing Hurst v. Kansas City, Missouri School Dist. , 437 S.W.3d 327, 339 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) ). A contributing factor is a condition that "contributes a share in anything or has a part in producing th......
  • Walsh v. City of Kan. City
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 2 Febrero 2016
    ...fees by the trial court, and who successfully defends that favorable judgment on appeal. See, e.g., Hurst v. Kansas City, Missouri Sch. Dist., 437 S.W.3d 327, 344 (Mo.App.W.D.2014) ; Holmes v. Kansas City, Missouri Bd. of Police Com'rs ex ret. Its Members, 364 S.W.3d 615, 631 (Mo.App.W.D.20......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Section 5.15 Missouri Statutes
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar School Law Deskbook Chapter 5 Employment Law
    • Invalid date
    ...affirmed judgments against employers for failure to hire candidates in protected classes. See: · Hurst v. Kansas City, Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 S.W.3d 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (affirming compensatory and punitive damage awards in favor of a school psychological examiner alleging age discriminati......
  • Section 18.29 Mitigation
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Tort Law Deskbook Chapter 18 Property Damage
    • Invalid date
    ...are not recoverable. Any failure to mitigate damages should be raised as an affirmative defense. Hurst v. Kansas City, Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 S.W.3d 327, 337 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). According to MAI 4.01 [2002 Revision], Committee Comment (2002 Revision), instructions for mitigation have varied ......
1 provisions
  • SB 43 – Modifies the law relating to unlawful discrimination
    • United States
    • Missouri Session Laws
    • 1 Enero 2017
    ...792 (1973). 5. The general assembly hereby expressly abrogates by this statute the holding in Hurst v. Kansas City Mo. School District, 437 S.W.3d 327 (Mo.App. W.D. 2014), that Missouri Approved Instruction 19.01 may be applied to actions brought pursuant to this chapter, and the holding in......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT