Poke v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 07 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | WD84198 |
| Parties | TRAVIS POKE, Appellant, v. INDEPENDENCE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Jennifer M. Phillips, Judge
Before Cynthia L. Martin, Chief Judge, Presiding, Gary D. Witt Judge and Roy L. Richter, Special Judge
Travis Poke ("Poke") appeals from the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Independence School District ("School District") on Poke's claim of retaliatory discharge pursuant to section 287.780[1] following Poke's exercise of rights under the Workers' Compensation Law.[2] Poke asserts that the trial court committed legal error when it concluded that the School District enjoys sovereign immunity from section 287.780 claims of retaliatory discharge. Because the General Assembly expressly waived sovereign immunity for section 287.780 claims of retaliatory discharge, and because the exception to waiver of sovereign immunity described in section 105.850 does not apply to the School District Poke's claim against the School District for retaliatory discharge is not barred by sovereign immunity. We reverse and remand.
Factual and Procedural Background[3]
Poke was employed by the School District as a custodian. On December 18, 2019, Poke injured his lower abdomen and groin while attempting to fold a cafeteria table. Poke worked through his pain for the next three days until a scheduled holiday break. When Poke returned to work on January 2, 2020 his pain had decreased, although he had a knot in his lower abdomen and groin. Over the next two weeks, Poke experienced intermittent pain that increased with activities.
On January 14, 2020, Poke lifted a full trash barrel liner at work, and then experienced intense pain and nausea, and had difficulty standing. Poke informed his supervisor that he needed to seek medical attention. A medical provider informed Poke that he may have suffered a hernia. Poke realized he sustained the hernia while attempting to fold the cafeteria table on December 18, 2019.
Poke initiated a workers' compensation claim with the School District on January 15, 2020. He was directed to the School District's authorized treatment provider, who diagnosed Poke with inguinal tenderness and directed Poke not to lift objects greater than ten pounds, not to engage in strenuous pulling or pushing, and not to bend or squat. Poke provided the School District's authorized treatment provider with a urine sample. Poke returned to work on January 16, 2020.
On January 27, 2020, the School District discharged Poke and provided him with a termination letter. The letter advised that Poke had been terminated for violating the School District's policy that "any District employees under the influence of drugs or controlled substances while on duty are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination." According to the termination letter Poke's urine sample tested positive for marijuana. The School District relied on the positive drug test to deny Poke's workers' compensation claim.
On February 28, 2020, Poke filed a petition ("Petition") against the School District that alleged the stated basis for his termination was pretextual, and that he was actually terminated in retaliation for exercising his rights under the Workers' Compensation Law. Poke's Petition asserted that "[t]he actions of [the School District], including [Poke's] discharge from employment and denial of [Poke's] previously accepted workers' compensation claim, were acts of retaliation, in violation of [section] 287.780."
The School District filed an answer ("Answer") to the Petition and denied that Poke was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The Answer also asserted that "[Poke's] claim[ is] barred by the doctrines of governmental, sovereign, and/or Eleventh Amendment immunity."
The School District filed a motion for summary judgment ("Motion for Summary Judgment") on July 29, 2020. The School District's statement of uncontroverted facts alleged: (1) that "[Poke's] claims are based upon events occurring between December 2019 and January 2020"; (2) that "[t]he [School] District maintained a single liability insurance policy . . . potentially providing coverage in this case"; and (3) that the liability insurance policy contains a provision that preserves the School District's sovereign immunity as provided by law. The Motion for Summary Judgment argued that settled decisional law establishes that public entities like the School District are entitled to sovereign immunity from section 287.780 retaliatory discharge claims.[4] The Motion for Summary Judgment thus argued that even though the School District had acquired liability insurance, [5] the policy's exclusion of coverage to the extent of the School District's sovereign immunity was controlling, and required the entry of judgment in favor of the School District as a matter of law.
Poke's suggestions in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment admitted each of the School District's uncontroverted facts. Poke argued, however, that the uncontroverted facts did not entitle the School District to judgment as a matter of law. Poke argued that the General Assembly expressly waived sovereign immunity for section 287.780 retaliatory discharge claims by including governmental bodies within the definition of "employer" applicable to Chapter 287. Poke further argued that Missouri cases holding that sovereign immunity is not waived by section 287.780 rely on section 105.850 to reach that conclusion, and have been wrongly decided.
The trial court issued a judgment and order granting the School District's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Judgment") on November 12, 2020. The Judgment concluded that, pursuant to Krasney v. Curators of University of Missouri, 765 S.W.2d 646, 648 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989), and King v. Probate Division, Circuit Court of County of St. Louis, 21st Judicial Circuit, 958 S.W.2d 92, 93 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), the School District enjoyed sovereign immunity with respect to Poke's section 287.780 claim for retaliatory discharge. The Judgment further found that the School District's purchase of a liability insurance policy did not waive sovereign immunity, as the policy provided that coverage would not extend to claims that would have been barred by sovereign immunity but for the existence of the policy.
Poke appeals.
"We review the grant of summary judgment de novo." Estes as Next Friend for Doe v. Bd. of Trs. of Mo. Pub. Entity Risk Mgmt. Fund, 623 S.W.3d 678, 686 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting In re Annaliese Brightwell Tr., 605 S.W.3d 143, 145 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020)). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and where the uncontroverted facts entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Where, as here, the movant is the defendant, summary judgment is appropriate when the movant establishes one of the following:
(1) facts negating any one of the claimant's elements necessary for judgment; (2) that the claimant, after an adequate period of discovery, has not been able to--and will not be able to--produce evidence sufficient to allow the trier of fact to find the existence of one of the claimant's elements; or (3) facts necessary to support his properly pleaded affirmative defense.
Scholdberg v. Scholdberg, 578 S.W.3d 831, 834-35 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (quoting Love v. Waring, 560 S.W.3d 614, 618-19 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018)).
In determining whether the trial court's entry of summary judgment was appropriate, we treat the School District's statement of uncontroverted facts as true unless properly controverted by Poke. Id. at 834. Poke admitted each of the School District's uncontroverted facts. Thus, we must determine whether the uncontroverted facts supported the entry of judgment in favor of the School District as a matter of law. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 380 (Mo. banc 1993) ("The key to summary judgment is the undisputed right to judgment as a matter of law; not simply the absence of a fact question.").
Poke asserts in a single point on appeal that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it entered summary judgment in favor of the School District on the basis of sovereign immunity. Poke claims that the General Assembly's inclusion of the state and its political subdivisions in the definition of "employer" for purposes of Chapter 287 constituted an express waiver of sovereign immunity for section 287.780 retaliatory discharge claims asserted against an employer. Poke argues that Missouri cases holding to the contrary in reliance on section 105.850, an antiquated statute, were wrongly decided, and should be disregarded.[6]
The School District concedes that it falls within the definition of "employer" for purposes of Chapter 287, but argues that section 105.850 has been repeatedly construed to retain the protection of sovereign immunity for section 287.780 claims of retaliatory discharge. The School District thus argues that settled precedent requires us to affirm the trial court's Judgment.
The trial court's Judgment expressly relied on the holdings in Krasney and King to conclude that the School District enjoys sovereign immunity from section 287.780 retaliatory discharge claims. Krasney and King both hold that, to the extent applicable section 105.850 preserves sovereign immunity for tort claims arising under the Workers' Compensation Law, including claims pursuant to section 287.780. Relying on Krasney and King, the trial court reached the same conclusion, though the Judgment does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial