Pickett v. Emerson Elec. Co., 60301
| Decision Date | 07 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 60301,60301 |
| Citation | 830 S.W.2d 459 |
| Parties | 58 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1430 Eva PICKETT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Hanna, Kevin J. Lorenz, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Michael J. Hoare, John D. Lynn, Rhonda K. Webb, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is an appeal by defendant, Emerson Electric Company (Emerson) from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Eva E. Pickett (Pickett) on her discrimination claim brought under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) § 213.010 et seq. RSMo (1986). Pickett alleged that Emerson violated that part of the MHRA which makes unlawful any retaliation or discrimination against a person because that person has exercised rights under the Act. § 213.070(2) RSMo (1986). Specifically, Pickett alleged that as a result of her previous claim alleging sexual discrimination in job promotion, Emerson required her to perform tasks that she had not previously been asked to perform.
Over the objection of Emerson, the case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict of $1 actual damages and $1,000 punitive damages. Additionally, Emerson was ordered by the court to pay attorney's fees and costs of $55,950 pursuant to § 213.111 RSMo (1986) which allows the court to award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.
Emerson appeals from this verdict on several grounds. These grounds include the trial court's ruling on the request for a jury trial; the court's refusal to enter a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; an improper instruction; and the award of reasonable attorney's fees. We decline Emerson's invitation to address each of these issues as we find the issue concerning the right to a jury trial dispositive.
The parties to this cause did not have the benefit of State of Missouri, ex rel. James W. Tolbert v. The Honorable J. Miles Sweeney, 828 S.W.2d 929 (Mo.App.1992), an opinion handed down by our colleagues in the Southern District a week prior to the oral argument before this court.
The issue in Tolbert arose out of an application for a Writ of Prohibition seeking to restrain the trial judge from allowing the underlying suit to be tried before a jury. In Tolbert, the plaintiff filed suit claiming a violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act, See 213.010 et seq. RSMo 1986. The prayer for relief requested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Diehl v. O'Malley
...rights act. Two decisions of the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, followed Tolbert without further analysis: Pickett v. Emerson Electric Co., 830 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Mo.App.1992), and Wentz v. Industrial Automation, 847 S.W.2d 877, 880 (Mo.App.1993). The western district, in State ex rel. W......
-
Klotz v. ST. ANTHONY'S MEDICAL CENTER
...filed; 49 jury trial verdicts • Fiscal 2009: 604 cases filed; 37 jury trial verdicts 4 Diehl overruled Tolbert, Pickett v. Emerson Electric Co., 830 S.W.2d 459 (Mo.App.1992), and Wentz v. Industrial Automation, 847 S.W.2d 877 (Mo.App.1993), denying the right of trial by jury in such cases. ......
-
Finley v. Empiregas, Inc. of Potosi, 91-3099
...(Tolbert ), ruled that § 213.111 of the Missouri Human Rights Act does not provide for a trial by jury. See also Pickett v. Emerson Elec. Co., 830 S.W.2d 459 (Mo.Ct.App.1992). But see Stewart v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 702 F.Supp. 230 (E.D.Mo.1988). Even if this court were to hold Tolber......
-
Sullivan v. Curators of University of Missouri
...the MHRA pursuant to the Missouri Constitution. State ex rel. Tolbert v. Sweeney, 828 S.W.2d 929 (Mo.App.1992); Pickett v. Emerson Electric Co., 830 S.W.2d 459 (Mo. App.1992). The right of jury trial in federal court is governed entirely by federal law. Simler v. Conner, 372 U.S. 221, 222, ......