Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., WD 80108

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtAlok Ahuja, Judge
Citation546 S.W.3d 23
Parties Janet MIGNONE, Respondent, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant.
Decision Date06 February 2018
Docket NumberWD 80108

546 S.W.3d 23

Janet MIGNONE, Respondent,
v.
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant.

WD 80108

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: February 6, 2018
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018
Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018


Emily A. Wales, Jefferson City for appellant.

Kirk D.Holman, Kenneth D. Kinney, Kansas City for respondent.

Before Division Three: Alok Ahuja, P.J., and James Edward Welsh and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.

Alok Ahuja, Judge

546 S.W.3d 28

Respondent Janet Mignone was employed as a Corrections Officer I at the Department of Corrections' Western Missouri Correctional Center in Cameron. Mignone filed suit against the Department in December 2012. She alleged that she had been the victim of sexual harassment in her employment in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (or "MHRA"), § 213.010, RSMoet seq. Mignone also alleged that Department employees had retaliated against her for complaining about the sexual harassment.

Following a five-day trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Department on Mignone's sexual harassment claim. The jury found in Mignone's favor, however, on her two claims of retaliation. The jury awarded her $100,000 in compensatory damages, and $1 million in punitive damages.

The Department appeals. We affirm, and remand the case to the circuit court for it to award Mignone her reasonable attorney's fees and expenses on appeal.

Factual Background

From September 2008 to April 2013, Mignone worked for the Department of Corrections at the Western Missouri Correctional Center in Cameron. At the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Mignone was employed as a Corrections Officer I in Housing Unit 6. Sergeant James Nuckols was Mignone's direct supervisor.

In late 2010 or early 2011, Mignone began working with Kevin Fagan, another Corrections Officer I, in Unit 6. Mignone and Fagan initially got along, and she and Fagan had once gone out to dinner with their respective spouses. Their relationship changed, however, in the last six-to-nine months that they worked together.

According to Mignone's testimony, by May 2011 Fagan had become obsessed with her. He called her nicknames, including "babe" and "Italian girl," and told inmates not to bother "my Mignone." Fagan would follow Mignone to her car in the parking lot and clean her windows; inmates also told Mignone that Fagan stared at her. Fagan offered her motorcycle rides late at night, telling her that "[n]obody needs to know about it." Mignone asked Fagan to stop because she was feeling uncomfortable, but his familiar and flirtatious behavior continued.

Mignone first reported Fagan's conduct to Sgt. Nuckols in October or November 2011, and told Nuckols that she wanted Fagan's conduct to stop. Nuckols testified that he addressed the issue with Fagan, but the behavior continued. Mignone did not make a written complaint at that time.

In December 2011 and January 2012, a series of incidents occurred involving Mignone's use of a single-person bathroom in an area of the prison known as "the bubble." The bathroom had a dead-bolt on the inside which the occupant could lock, but the door could be unlocked from the outside with a key. In December 2011, on two different occasions, someone unlocked the bathroom door from the outside while Mignone was using the bathroom. She yelled "stop" on both occasions, and no one

546 S.W.3d 29

opened the door or entered. Mignone did not know who it was. On both occasions she asked co-workers who witnessed the incidents for the identity of the perpetrator, and on both occasions her colleagues identified Fagan.

A similar incident occurred on January 15, 2012. As Mignone entered the bathroom three male employees were present, including Fagan and Nuckols. As Mignone was urinating, the bathroom door unlocked and began to open. Mignone lurched for the doorknob, grabbed it, and pulled the door shut, screaming, "Don't! Stop!" In reaching for the doorknob, Mignone urinated on her clothes. As she exited the bathroom, Nuckols laughed and spun around in his chair to avoid facing her. Mignone said that it was not funny.

Nuckols admitted witnessing Fagan unlock the bathroom door on January 15, 2012. He also admitted that a few days prior to this incident, Mignone had told him that Fagan was unlocking the bathroom door. Nuckols admitted that he had not addressed the issue with Fagan prior to January 15, purportedly because their schedules had not overlapped, and because he forgot.

Following the January 15, 2012 incident, two similar incidents occurred on the very next night. Both were witnessed by Corrections Officer I Dwayne Fidler. He testified that he saw Fagan unlock the bathroom door twice while Mignone was inside. On the second occasion, after unlocking the door Fagan said, "move over and make room for me in there."

According to Mignone, Fagan opened the bathroom door, and this time she confronted him directly. Fagan did not respond, and never apologized.

On January 17, 2012, Mignone reported the bathroom incidents to Captains Dusty Jones and Cody Ross. Although Fagan was briefly transferred out of Unit 6, the Department returned him to the unit during the first week of February 2012.

Captain Jones asked Mignone to write an inter-office communication about the allegations involving Fagan, which she did on January 24. Following this written complaint, Jones collected statements from a number of witnesses. Jones drafted a memorandum and submitted it to Deputy Warden Chris McBee. The packet of information was forwarded to the Department's central Human Resources office in Jefferson City on January 27, 2012. After reviewing Jones' memorandum, the Human Resources department did not recommend an investigation. Because Fagan admitted to unlocking the bathroom door while Mignone was inside, Human Resources returned the matter to prison management for supervisory action, and recommended that Fagan be submitted for discipline. Fagan was suspended for one day without pay.

On February 9, 2012, Mignone met with Function Unit Manager Paden and Lieutenant Penland. At the meeting, Mignone was asked to agree to continue working with Fagan. She refused.

On February 16, 2012, Mignone was transferred out of Unit 6.1 Over the following several months, she worked at housing units all over the facility, until she was placed in Unit 10 in Fall 2012. The explanation Mignone received at the time of her transfer was that inmates had made a death threat against her. According to Mignone, she was told that a "kite" (or note)

546 S.W.3d 30

with a threat had been found, along with a shank. Although Mignone requested to see the items, she was not shown either a kite or a shank, and was later told by Department supervisors that the threat was verbal, not written. Officer Jani Holt conducted an internal investigation into the threat, and issued a report on April 20, 2012. Holt reported that she "sincerely doubt[ed]" that "an actual 'hit' [had been] placed on COI J. Mignone." Holt's report stated that Mignone "thinks it is all a ploy to get her out of six (6) house and I would agree with that completely."

When Mignone asked about the status of her request to be transferred back to Unit 6 in May 2012, she was informed by the Warden that the investigation into the death threat had not been completed, and that her request to return to Housing Unit 6 would be reevaluated after the investigation concluded. Despite the Warden's claim that the internal investigation of the threat was ongoing, Holt's investigative report had been sent to the Warden weeks earlier. Moreover, on May 23, 2012, the Warden's clerical assistant sent an email stating that "the administrative inquiry where the offender made a threat is complete. However, the matter between [Mignone] and Officer Fagan is not so they have not returned her to her post." The Warden acknowledged that, after completion of the investigation of the death threat, Mignone should have been returned to Unit 6, and Fagan should have been reassigned.

On May 9, 2012, Mignone reported to Lieutenant Lorieann Hunter that Sgt. Nuckols had inappropriately touched her thigh in November 2011. According to Mignone's testimony at trial, Nuckols called her over to him at the beginning of a shift while he was seated in a chair, and placed his hand on her thigh. When Mignone jumped back and asked what he was doing, Nuckols said that there was something on her pants. Nuckols denied the allegation.

Mignone was interviewed by Investigator Bill Johnson on August 7 and 15, 2012, concerning her complaint against Sgt. Nuckols. Mignone's co-worker Officer Keithly sat in on the second interview as a co-worker representative. During the second interview, Johnson pressured Mignone to put her statements in writing, even though she objected because she did not want to guess on dates. Mignone felt like Johnson wanted her to write something inaccurately so she could be punished. Johnson raised his voice, causing Mignone's heart to race. Keithly described Johnson's demeanor as "aggressive" because he was very pushy and would not give Mignone time to answer. Mignone became...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Brovont v. KS-I Med. Servs., P.A., WD 82544
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 13, 2020
    ...probable--that the defendant's conduct was outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference. Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23, 41 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting Howard v. City of Kan. City , 332 S.W.3d 772, 788 (Mo. banc 2011) ).Analysis In this case, the evidence viewe......
  • Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., MDL No. 1:18md2820-SNLJ
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • November 25, 2020
    ...the punitive damages award on a $50,000 compensatory award to $3.75 million—a 75:1 ratio); Mignone v. Missouri Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23, 45 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018) (upholding 10:1 ratio, $1 million punitive damages and $100,000 compensatory damages); Lewellen v. Franklin, 441 S.W.3d 136, 1......
  • Gill v. City of St. Peters, ED 109658
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 1, 2022
    ...of interpreting the MHRA. See Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Prods. , 911 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Mo. banc 1995) ; Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 546 S.W.3d 23, 35-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018).Contrary to the language of the Ledbetter Act cited by Gill, the clear and unambiguous language of the MHRA sets......
  • Schieve v. Meyer, WD 83700
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 1, 2021
    ...in bringing suit." Dixson v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 586 S.W.3d 816, 831 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 546 S.W.3d 23, 45 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) ). And, here, Schieve plainly was the prevailing party in the suit. As such, she was entitled to attorneys’ fees under t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Brovont v. KS-I Med. Servs., P.A., WD 82544
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 13, 2020
    ...probable--that the defendant's conduct was outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference. Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23, 41 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (quoting Howard v. City of Kan. City , 332 S.W.3d 772, 788 (Mo. banc 2011) ).Analysis In this case, the evidence viewe......
  • Bader Farms, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., MDL No. 1:18md2820-SNLJ
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri)
    • November 25, 2020
    ...the punitive damages award on a $50,000 compensatory award to $3.75 million—a 75:1 ratio); Mignone v. Missouri Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23, 45 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018) (upholding 10:1 ratio, $1 million punitive damages and $100,000 compensatory damages); Lewellen v. Franklin, 441 S.W.3d 136, 1......
  • Gill v. City of St. Peters, ED 109658
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 1, 2022
    ...of interpreting the MHRA. See Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Prods. , 911 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Mo. banc 1995) ; Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 546 S.W.3d 23, 35-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018).Contrary to the language of the Ledbetter Act cited by Gill, the clear and unambiguous language of the MHRA sets......
  • Schieve v. Meyer, WD 83700
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 1, 2021
    ...in bringing suit." Dixson v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 586 S.W.3d 816, 831 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr. , 546 S.W.3d 23, 45 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) ). And, here, Schieve plainly was the prevailing party in the suit. As such, she was entitled to attorneys’ fees under t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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