St. Louis County v. Brooks, 41823

• Decision Date: 24 March 1981
• Docket Number: No. 41823,41823
• Citation: 614 S.W.2d 283
• Parties: 61 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1865, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,743 ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Missouri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin BROOKS et al., Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 283

614 S.W.2d 283

61 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1865,

25 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,743

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Missouri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin BROOKS et al., Defendant-Respondent.

No. 41823.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

March 24, 1981.

Thomas C. Wehrle, County Counselor, Karen C. Moculeski, Asst. County Counselor, Clayton, for plaintiff-appellant.

John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Gregory W. Schroeder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.

SIMON, Judge.

St. Louis County (County) appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County affirming a decision of the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (Commission). The Commission found that the County had engaged in an unlawful employment practice as defined in § 296.020 RSMo 1969 ¹ in its discharge of Ron R. Greeley, a former employee, and thus the Commission found that race was a significant factor in the County's decision to terminate him. We reverse.

On appeal, the County contends (1) the Commission's decision was not supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record as a whole; (2) the decision and action of the Commission was not made pursuant to the procedure specified in Chapter 296; and (3) the Commission did not have jurisdiction to hold a hearing in the present action in that there was not a prompt investigation made and an immediate endeavor to hear the complaint.

The complainant, Ron R. Greeley (Greeley), is a black male who was hired in September 1970 to direct the Public Service Careers Program (PSCP) within the St. Louis County Government. The PSCP was a federally funded program designed to place "hard core" unemployed in positions in county government. Greeley was previously employed with the Human Development Corporation as a job developer, and had prior work experience in the job training and development field. He was hired by Paul Epps (Epps), then Director of the Office Manpower Programs for St. Louis County, Epps was Greeley's supervisor throughout Greeley's tenure as director of the PSCP.

At the Commission hearing, Epps testified that when he hired Greeley, Greeley had an outstanding success record in placing individuals in employment, particularly those persons who are minorities, ex-offenders, or other difficult persons to place. Also, that when he hired Greeley he knew of no other blacks in supervisory positions within the administrative section of St. Louis County government, except perhaps for one employed as an administrative assistant in the Division of Parks and Recreation.

Further, Epps testified that the fact that there were only a few blacks in county government caused Greeley problems in working with other white administrators. Epps also stated that because of the objectives of the PSCP program, which were to employ minorities and other "hard core" unemployed, and because Greeley was black, those circumstances could explain some of the difficulties and resistance which were encountered from other department heads and administrators in St. Louis County government. Epps related that at the time the program was started his immediate supervisor was Mr. Gray, the Director of the Department of Administration who referred to the PSCP programs as Epps' "nigger program."

Late in 1971, Epps received as a subordinate, Dick Murray (Murray), a white male, who was transferred from another position within St. Louis County government to head the Public Employment Program (PEP), another federally funded program.

Epps supervised both Greeley's PSCP program and Murray's PEP program. At the hearing Epps testified that although Greeley and Murray were in charge of separate programs, there was some overlapping in function and from the very beginning there was some "healthy competition" and friction between Greeley and Murray.

Sometime in January of 1972, Murray became concerned that perhaps some participants in the PEP program were not residing in St. Louis County, which was one of the qualifications of employment under the program. Murray observed that some of the applicants had used Greeley's St. Louis County address on their PEP participant applications. It was Murray's suspicion that Greeley was using his own address in order to qualify these people for employment within St. Louis County government. When Murray brought the matter to Epps' attention, Epps did not view it with the same alarm as did Murray. However, Epps did assure Murray that he would investigate the matter. Murray, not content in letting Epps handle the matter, went to Greeley's office on February 1, 1972 and confronted Greeley with his suspicions. A physical altercation occurred between the two men. There were no witnesses to the altercation.

The testimony was conflicting as to how the physical altercation developed. Greeley testified that Murray called him racially derogatory names while accusing him of falsifying records. He testified that he felt intimidated and that when he rose from his desk to leave the room, Murray shoved him. Greeley stated that he responded by hitting Murray with his fists and that after knocking Murray to the ground, it was possible that he kicked Murray but he did not recall.

Murray denied calling Greeley any racially derogatory names and denied shoving him, denied hitting Greeley at any time during the incident. Murray's account of the incident was that Greeley became angry, came around the desk and proceeded to hit Murray several times which caused Murray to fall to the floor. It was Murray's testimony that Greeley continued to kick him while he was on the floor. When the altercation was over, Murray went to clean up. Greeley went to lunch.

As Murray was returning to his office he met Epps. Epps stated that when Murray came to him, Murray's nose was swollen and bleeding, his clothes were dirty and rumpled, and there were footprint marks on the back of Murray's suit. In response to Epps' inquiry as to what had happened, Murray stated that he had been hit and kicked by Greeley without provocation. Immediately after telling Epps what had happened, Murray left the building to seek medical attention for a broken nose.

Having concluded the incident was a serious physical altercation, Epps went to Mr. Baer's office and related what Murray had told him of the incident. Mr. Baer (Baer) was the executive assistant to Mr. Roos, the County Supervisor at that time and Epps' immediate supervisor. Epps suggested that both men be suspended pending further investigation into the matter. No decision was made at that time, since Baer wanted to consult with Mr. Roos.

When Greeley returned to the building later that same afternoon, Epps went to his office to get his side of the story. Greeley admitted hitting Murray following a verbal dispute. Greeley stated that the dispute was precipitated with Murray's accusations of wrongdoing regarding the PEP applications. At the time, Greeley did not allege that he had been called any racially derogatory names, nor did he indicate that Murray had precipitated the fight by shoving him.

The following day Epps met personally with Baer and again suggested that both men be suspended. However, Baer informed him that Greeley would have to be terminated. When asked by Baer if Murray should be terminated as well, Epps responded that Murray apparently had not been the aggressor, that he was the injured party, and that a suspension would probably be sufficient.

Epps handled the matter by giving Greeley the option of submitting a resignation or being terminated. He assured Greeley that if he resigned he would do everything possible to set up another job for him. Greeley signed a letter of resignation which had been prepared by Epps. When the job did not materialize, Greeley felt that he had been unfairly pressured. He attempted to withdraw the resignation, and was unable to do so. He then filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that he had been the victim of racial discrimination.

Murray, on the other hand, was not fired or suspended, nor was an official reprimand entered into his personal file. He was informally reprimanded for taking the matter into his own hands.

Greeley filed a complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights in March of 1972. The Commission rendered its decision on July 13, 1978, finding that Greeley had been unlawfully discriminated against by the County, and awarded him back pay through December of 1974. The Commission made specific "Findings of Fact" and "Conclusions of Law." The Commission's decision was affirmed by the St. Louis County Circuit Court on June 6, 1979. This appeal followed.

Section 296.050 provides that judicial review of an action by the Missouri Commission on Human Rights shall be in a manner provided in Chapter 536 RSMo, which contains the general provisions for administrative procedure and review. Section 536.140 RSMo 1978 permits judicial inquiry to extend to a determination of whether the action of the agency is supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.

Fundamentally, in conducting our review, we shall not reweigh the evidence, but shall review the evidence in its entirety in the light most favorable to the Commission's decision, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom. Abbott v. Civil Service Commission of the City of St. Louis, 546 S.W.2d 36, 37 (Mo.App.1976).

The Commission's "Conclusions of Law" indicate that the Commission specifically found that whoever made the decision to terminate Greeley did so on their belief that he was the aggressor in a serious physical confrontation. The Commission also found that Greeley did seriously injure Murray, and that such behavior would have justified discipline. However, the Commission concluded "that race was a significant factor in the decision to terminate Greeley rather than discipline him in some other manner." The basis for the Commission's decision therefore was that the County was discriminatory...