State v. Mo. Comm'n On Human Rights

• Decision Date: 02 October 2018
• Docket Number: WD 81352
• Citation: 561 S.W.3d 107
• Parties: STATE of Missouri EX REL. COMMUNITY TREATMENT, INC., et al., Appellants, v. MISSOURI COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS and Alisa Warren, Ph.D., in her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

561 S.W.3d 107

STATE of Missouri EX REL. COMMUNITY TREATMENT, INC., et al., Appellants,

v.MISSOURI COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS and Alisa Warren, Ph.D., in her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Respondents.

WD 81352

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: October 2, 2018

James M. Paul and Andrew L. Metcalf, St. Louis, MO, for appellants.

Scott M. Snipkie, Jefferson City, MO, for respondents.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt, Judge and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

Gary D. Witt, Judge

Community Treatment, Inc., Sue Curfman, Gene Bryan, and Judy Finnegan (collectively "Community Treatment") appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, dismissing their First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus ("Amended Petition"). Community Treatment sought a writ mandating the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (the "Commission") withdraw a right-to-sue letter issued pursuant to section 213.111.1¹ to Danielle Brantley ("Brantley"), who sought to file suit against Community Treatment alleging Community Treatment discharged her in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA")² and the reasons it provided for her termination were pretextual. Specifically, Community Treatment alleges the circuit court erred in granting the Commission's motion to dismiss both because the court improperly considered matters beyond the pleadings but also because it wrongfully concluded that the Amended Petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because we have before us an incomplete record, we dismiss the appeal.

Factual Background³

The following facts are alleged in Community Treatment's First Amended Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Writs of Mandamus. Brantley was an employee of Community Treatment, Inc. from October 28, 2013, to February 11, 2016, at which time Community Treatment, Inc. terminated her employment. On August 19, 2016, Brantley filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Commission alleging discrimination and retaliation on the part of Community Treatment, Inc., Sue Curfman and Gene Bryan, and later adding Judy Finnegan ("Charge").⁴ The Charge was filed 190 days after Brantley's termination. The Commission corresponded with Brantley's attorney by email discussing the timeliness of Brantley's Charge. The Commission "examined the charge and determined that it was untimely under Section 213.075, RSMo, because it was not filed within 180 days of Brantley's termination of employment." The Commission took no further action on the Charge and stopped its processing.

Following a request by Brantley, on May 15, 2017, the Commission issued Brantley a right-to-sue letter indicating that the Commission had not made any determination as to its jurisdiction, but was issuing the letter pursuant to Brantley's request. The Commission's statement in the right-to-sue letter, that it had not yet made any determination as to its jurisdiction, was incorrect because the Commission had already determined the Charge to be untimely filed.

On June 9, 2017, Community Treatment filed a petition for a preliminary writ and a writ of mandamus, which was later amended. Community Treatment sought a writ ordering the Commission to withdraw and vacate the right-to-sue letter and ordering the Commission to dismiss the underlying Charge for lack of jurisdiction. Brantley sought leave to intervene in the proceeding; the court granted her motion. On October 13, 2017, Community Treatment filed Suggestions in Support of its Amended Petition, including the filing of several exhibits. The Commission filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Petition on October 20, 2017 ("Motion to Dismiss"). Brantley filed her own motion to dismiss on October 23, 2017.

The court held a hearing on both motions on November 20, 2017 ("Motion Hearing"). Following the hearing, the court entered its judgment ("Judgment") dismissing the Amended Petition and quashing the preliminary writ on December 20, 2017.⁵ This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

"This Court reviews the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. " Jackson v. Barton , 548 S.W.3d 263, 267 (Mo. banc 2018). "A motion to dismiss a petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to state a cause of action, like any motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, is solely a test of the adequacy of the relator's petition." Lemay Fire Prot. Dist. v. St. Louis Cnty. , 340 S.W.3d 292, 294 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). The question of whether a petition states a claim for which relief can be granted is a question of law. Id. "We review the grant of such a motion in the light most favorable to the relator's claims, assume all of the facts alleged in the pleading are true, construe those facts liberally in favor of the relator, give the relator the benefit of every reasonable intendment favorable to its pleading, and judge the pleading with [ ]‘broad indulgence.’ " Id. "We do not weigh the factual allegations to determine whether they are credible or persuasive." Chochorowski v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. , 295 S.W.3d 194, 197 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). "The determination of factual questions is not appropriate on a motion to dismiss." Id.

Discussion

Community Treatment raises two allegations of error on appeal. In their first point, Community Treatment alleges that the circuit court erred in dismissing the Amended Petition because the court did not either consider solely the allegations in the pleadings or the court failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 74⁶ to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment if it considered matters outside of the pleadings. In its second point, Community Treatment alleges that the circuit court erred in dismissing the Amended Petition because the Amended Petition did state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

"In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court can only consider the pleadings, and appellate review is also limited to the pleadings." Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C. v. Mason , 316 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (quoting L.C. Dev. Co. v. Lincoln Cnty. , 26 S.W.3d 336, 339 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) ). If the court considers matters outside the pleadings, Rule 55.27(a) allows a motion to dismiss to be converted into a motion for summary judgment if certain procedures are followed. Id. Rule 55.27(a)(11)(B) states, in pertinent part:

If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 74.04. All parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 74.04.

"Before a trial court may treat a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, however, it must notify the parties that it is going to do so and give the parties an opportunity to present all materials pertinent to a motion for summary judgment." Walters Bender , 316 S.W.3d at 480 (quoting Grellner v. Foremost Signature Ins. Co. , 291 S.W.3d 351, 353-54 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) ). Where there is no evidence that the court notified the parties that it intended to treat the motion as a request for summary judgment or considered matters outside the pleadings it will be treated as a motion to dismiss. See Manzer v. Sanchez , 985 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). "When, however, ‘both parties introduce evidence beyond the scope of the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment and the parties are charged with knowledge that the motion was so converted.’ " City of N. Kansas City v. K.C. Beaton Holding Co. , 417 S.W.3d 825, 830 n.6 (Mo App. W.D. 2014) (quoting Mitchell v. McEvoy , 237 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) ); Energy Creates Energy, LLC v. Heritage Grp. , 504 S.W.3d 142, 149 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (noting Missouri courts have held "when both parties put forward evidence outside of the pleadings and neither party objects, the parties have acquiesced to the motion to dismiss being converted to one for summary judgment without notice from the trial court and the dispensing of the procedural requirements of Rule 74.04.") (footnote omitted).

Community Treatment alleges that Brantley's attorney used three exhibits not attached to the Amended Petition in both her motion to dismiss and at the hearing conducted on the motion. Community Treatment also alleges that in the Commission's Motion to Dismiss, the Commission improperly relied on the evidence of whether a letter was sent to Brantley by the Commission stating that the administrative process was completed. Community Treatment admits that it also put forward additional evidence in the form of exhibits attached to its Suggestions in Support of the Amended Petition.⁷ To properly determine what evidence the circuit court considered and whether the court improperly considered evidence beyond the pleadings when ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, or whether the Motion to Dismiss was properly converted to one for Summary Judgment, we must review the entirety of the record.

This appeal, however, does not contain the full record for this Court to determine what evidence was presented to or considered by the circuit court in reaching its decision. The circuit court held the Motion Hearing to take up the Motion to Dismiss. However, no transcript of the Motion Hearing was provided to this Court and thus we are left with the inability to determine if the parties consented or objected on the record to have the motion treated as one for summary judgment. Nor can we determine what evidence, either through testimony or documentary exhibits, was offered by the parties, considered by the court or what if any objections were raised to any of the exhibits by...