Miller v. Securitas Sec. Servs. U.S. Inc.
Decision Date | 27 August 2019 |
Docket Number | WD 82265 |
Citation | 581 S.W.3d 723 |
Parties | Hal MILLER, Appellant, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA INC., et al., Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Kirk D. Holman, Kansas City, for Appellant.
Jeremy K. Schrag, Kansas City, for Respondents.
Alan L. Rupe, Co-counsel for Respondents.
Uzoamaka Nwonwu, Co-counsel for Respondents.
Kevin Miller, Kansas City, Co-counsel for Respondents.
Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge
Hal Miller appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of Boone County granting Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.’s ("Securitas") motion to dismiss Miller’s claims and compel arbitration. Miller brought this action against Securitas—his former employer—and Kelli Dorsey ("Dorsey")—a Securitas Human Resources Officer—asserting claims of disability discrimination, religious discrimination, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). Securitas moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay Miller’s claims and compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion, dismissed Miller’s petition with prejudice, and taxed costs against Miller. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In 2014, Miller was hired by Securitas. On his first day of work, May 13, 2014, Miller was presented with a Dispute Resolution Agreement (the "Agreement"), which provided, in relevant part:
(emphasis in original).
Miller was also presented with a separate acknowledgment form. That acknowledgment provided in part:
The acknowledgment was signed and dated "5-13-14" by Hal Miller and "Employer Representative" Amy McNulty.
Miller was assigned to work for Securitas client Maxion Wheels in Sedalia, Missouri. On May 17, 2014, he reported to Maxion Wheels. Miller’s last day of employment with Securitas was May 22, 2017.
On April 9, 2018, Miller filed this action. In his petition, Miller alleged that he underwent heart surgery in 2015 and, following that surgery, he requested his job requirements be modified so that he would not have to walk up stairs. Miller asserted his requested accommodation was granted and that he was able to complete his job requirements.1 He further alleged that at the time he was hired by Securitas, he "wore his facial hair as a beard," and that after his surgery, Dorsey directed him to shave his beard. Miller alleged that he refused this request for religious reasons, requested a religious accommodation, and, approximately two weeks later, he was terminated. Miller brought three claims pursuant to the MHRA, each directed at both Securitas and Dorsey (collectively, "Defendants"): disability discrimination and harassment, religious discrimination, and retaliation.
Securitas filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Stay Plaintiff’s Claims and Compel Arbitration. Attached to the motion were a declaration of Amalia Graham, a Human Resources Manager for Securitas; the Dispute Resolution Agreement; and the Dispute Resolution Agreement Acknowledgment. After briefing, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion.2 Thereafter, the trial court issued its Judgment ordering "that Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration is sustained." The trial court found that the parties had "a valid and binding agreement to arbitrate" and ordered the parties "to proceed to arbitration under the terms of that agreement." The trial court
This appeal followed.
"Whether the trial court should have granted a motion to compel arbitration is a question of law this court reviews de novo. " Greene v. Alliance Auto., Inc. , 435 S.W.3d 646, 649 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal marks omitted). "However, issues relating to the existence of an arbitration agreement are factual and require our deference to the trial court’s findings." Baier v. Darden Rests. , 420 S.W.3d 733, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). Where the trial court does not make factual findings, "all fact issues upon which no specific findings are made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached." Id. at 737 (internal marks omitted) (quoting Rule 73.01(c)); see also Pearson v. Koster , 367 S.W.3d 36, 52 (Mo. banc 2012) (where no written factual findings were made, the court viewed "the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment").
"Our review of the trial court’s determination as to the existence of an agreement itself is analogous to that in a court-tried case." Greene , 435 S.W.3d at 649 (internal marks omitted). Therefore, we uphold the trial court’s judgment "unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law." Kunzie v. Jack-In-The-Box, Inc. , 330 S.W.3d 476, 480 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). Additionally, we are required "to affirm the trial court’s order on any theory supported by the record." Baier , 420 S.W.3d at 737.
Miller raises three points on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in granting Securitas’s motion to compel arbitration as there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties; (2) the trial court erred in dismissing Miller’s case with prejudice; rather, the trial court should have stayed Miller’s claims pending arbitration; and (3) the trial court erred in assessing costs against Miller because under the version of the MHRA in effect when Miller’s claims accrued, a court may tax costs against a claimant only upon a showing that the case was without foundation, and no such showing was made here. We address each point in turn.
Miller appeals the trial court’s finding that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Haworth v. New Prime, Inc.
...sent by the offeree to the offeror objectively manifest the offeree's intent to be presently bound." Miller v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA Inc. , 581 S.W.3d 723, 730 (Mo. App. 2019) (cleaned up).d. Prime's Procedure for Executing Training Program ContractsPrime has failed to meet its burden o......
-
Brown v. Chipotle Servs., LLC
..." Trunnel v. Mo. Higher Educ. Loan Auth. , 635 S.W.3d 193, 197 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting Miller v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA Inc. , 581 S.W.3d 723, 728 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019), in turn quoting Baier v. Darden Rests. , 420 S.W.3d 733, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) ). Thus, as in any other case i......
-
SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy, LLC
...Agspray, LLC v. Cole , 308 S.W.3d 255, 259 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (internal quotations omitted); see also Miller v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA Inc. , 581 S.W.3d 723, 729 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019) (citation omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable juror co......
-
Keplinger v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc.
...435 S.W.3d 646, 650 (Mo. App. 2014). The Missouri Court of Appeals previously considered this exact Agreement (Miller v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 581 S.W.3d 723, 730) and found that the Agreement clearly demonstrated Securitas' objective intent to enter into a binding contract becau......