Wilkins v. Bd. of Regents of Harris-Stowe State Univ.

Citation519 S.W.3d 526
Decision Date06 June 2017
Docket NumberNo. ED 104354,ED 104354
Parties Beverly WILKINS, Respondent, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF HARRIS-STOWE STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Appellants.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Joshua D. Hawley, Colleen Joern Vetter, P.O. Box 861, St. Louis, MO 63188, for appellant.

Michael S. Meyers, 2237 Equestrian Loop S, Salem, OR 97302, for respondent.

KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge

Introduction

The Board of Regents of Harris-Stowe State University ("the Board") appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered following a jury trial. The jury found the Board liable for violating the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA")1 when it terminated the employment of Beverly W. Wilkins ("Wilkins"). The jury awarded Wilkins $1,350,000 in compensatory damages and $3,500,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the Board raises five points. First, the Board alleges instructional error with regard to Wilkins's claim for future damages. The Board next asserts evidentiary error in allowing the presentation of a Missouri statute, Section 174.150, to the jury.2 The Board's remaining points each claim error with regard to the compensatory and punitive damages award.

The trial court did not err in instructing the jury on future damages because sufficient evidence of lost future income and future emotional distress was introduced at trial to support the instruction. The record shows that the Board did not object to the discussion of Section 174.150 at trial and also did not preserve its challenge to the submissibility of punitive damages. Finally, we hold that the trial court acted within its discretion and did not err in refusing to remit the jury's compensatory-damage and punitive-damage awards. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural History

In 2001, Wilkins, a Caucasian woman, was hired to teach at Harris-Stowe State University ("HSSU") as an adjunct instructor in its Teacher Education Department. HSSU is a "historically black college." The majority of the faculty members in HSSU's Teacher Education Department were African-American. Wilkins later became a full-time instructor and began to teach additional classes over the summer. From 2001 to 2009, Wilkins's employment contract was regularly renewed, and Wilkins successfully taught as a non-tenure-track professor. In her final year of employment, the Board paid Wilkins $62,776 in salary and benefits. Wilkins also earned on average an additional $4,000 to $5,000 a year for teaching summer classes. Wilkins received excellent reviews and was considered an important member of HSSU's Teacher Education Department.

In 2009, the Board sought a new dean for HSSU's Teacher Education Department. During its search, the Board appointed Dr. Latisha Smith ("Dr. Smith"), an African-American woman, as a temporary co-chair for the department. After Dr. Smith's appointment, a faculty member within the Teacher Education Department sent an email to HSSU administrators, including the president, vice-president, and the human resources director. This email reported that Dr. Smith had repeatedly proclaimed her belief in "black power." The faculty member claimed to be upset "to know that we have an interim leader that has voiced her prejudice so openly to me and others. This flagrant prejudice should not be tolerated or accepted." A high-ranking HSSU official instructed the faculty member not to press her complaints or her ability to obtain tenure would be jeopardized. The Board subsequently promoted Dr. Smith to Dean of the Teacher Education Department. Dr. Smith, in her capacity as dean, became Wilkins's supervisor.

In April 2010, the Board learned that its state funding for the next fiscal year would be reduced by approximately $566,000. To balance HSSU's revenues with its expenditures, HSSU's financial administrators prepared an operating budget that eliminated open and unfilled positions. The operating budget also required the termination of two staff employees. The savings from these processes totaled $572,000.

The operating budget further provided for the "reorganization" of certain staff and faculty positions. The reorganization proposed the termination of eight additional employees, including two faculty members. Notably, the reorganization budget provided for the eventual replacement of the two terminated faculty members. As a result, the reorganization was conceptualized as budget-neutral because it would result in "a wash" with no overall savings derived by the university.

Dr. Smith recommended to HSSU's vice-president that the Board terminate Wilkins. HSSU's vice-president then composed a draft layoff list which included Dr. Smith's recommendation that Wilkins be terminated. Wilkins was included on the layoff list presented to the Board by HSSU officials. The Board approved the budget on June 22, 2010. The Board also sanctioned the purported reorganization, including Dr. Smith's recommendation to terminate Wilkins, as well as the corresponding plan to hire a replacement for Wilkins's position. The termination of Wilkins did not comport with HSSU's existing promulgated policy on reducing its work force. The Board, the entity responsible for providing oversight to HSSU, previously issued policies and procedures for the university to follow in its employment decisions. Under the reduction-in-force policy, HSSU was required to terminate non-adjunct faculty by seniority.3 In comparison to other non-tenure-track faculty, Wilkins had more seniority than two African-American instructors.

Contrary to its internal policies, HSSU officials terminated Wilkins over the less senior African-American instructors. On June 30, 2010, Wilkins met with HSSU officials, including the vice-president and human resources director. The human resources director handed Wilkins a letter informing her that she would be terminated as part of a reorganization effort due to a reduction in state funding. Wilkins was initially permitted to finish her summer class. Wilkins asked why she was selected for termination. The vice-president and human resources director refused to explain to Wilkins why she was terminated over other faculty with less seniority.

Wilkins notified the president, vice-president, Dr. Smith, and the human resources director by email that her termination did not comply with HSSU's policies and that she was contemplating legal action. HSSU's officials considered this email to be a complaint of race discrimination. HSSU policy required that all complaints of race discrimination in the employment process were to be investigated. The Board and top-level HSSU administrators never investigated Wilkins's complaint.

Upon returning to teach her summer class, Wilkins was asked by her students if she had been fired. Wilkins told her students that, although she would finish the summer course, she would not return the following semester. Knowing that Wilkins's daughter was an attorney, the students asked Wilkins if her daughter could help her. Wilkins acknowledged that her daughter was "not that kind of an attorney."

Wilkins was summoned the following week to attend a meeting with HSSU administrators, including the human resources director, the vice-president, and the assistant vice-president of academic affairs. At the meeting, HSSU officials fired Wilkins from teaching her summer class and instructed her to leave campus immediately. The human resources director gave Wilkins a letter informing her that she was terminated for "inappropriate activities." Wilkins pressed HSSU officials to explain her "inappropriate activities." HSSU officials refused to tell her. HSSU officials placed Wilkins's termination letter, including the notation that she was fired for "inappropriate activities," in her employment file.

The president of HSSU and a representative of the Board both testified that they had heard allegations that Wilkins told her students that she had been discriminated against by HSSU, that she was going to sue HSSU, and that she would impede HSSU's accreditation process. No individual student was identified as making these allegations, and no investigation was conducted by HSSU officials or the Board to discover the truth of these claims. HSSU's usual practice was to investigate any claims of employee misconduct. HSSU's conduct regarding Wilkins deviated from its standard practice, which often included interviews of witnesses and the accused employee, hearings with evidence presented, and decisions containing formal findings.

After Wilkins was fired from her summer course, the Board immediately moved forward with hiring Wilkins's replacement as a part of its purported reorganization plan. On August 2, 2010, an HSSU official, the assistant vice-president of academic affairs, listed Dr. Betty Porter Walls ("Dr. Walls") as a potential replacement in an email to HSSU administrators. In the email, Dr. Wails was expressly identified as being "black." The identification of Dr. Walls's race was included in HSSU's Academic Affairs Reorganization Plan. Ultimately, the Board hired Dr. Walls to a full-time contract. The Board also hired Dr. Savannah Young, another African-American instructor, to assume some of Wilkins's other teaching duties. In this period of budget-cutting, the net additional cost to HSSU for replacing Wilkins was approximately $23,000.

Wilkins filed suit against HSSU and the Board, claiming that her termination was in violation of the MHRA.4 In Count I, Wilkins alleged that HSSU and the Board discriminated against her because of her race in deciding to terminate or not renew Wilkins's annual teaching contract. In Count II, Wilkins alleged that HSSU and the Board terminated her summer-teaching assignment in retaliation for raising a race-discrimination claim.

During discovery, the trial court ordered the Board to preserve Dr. Smith's email account. In violation of this order, the Board deleted Dr. Smith's email account. Because of this violation, the trial court ruled, as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 2018
    ...claim may include awards for emotional distress, humiliation, and suffering." Wilkins v. Bd. of Regents of Harris–Stowe State Univ. , 519 S.W.3d 526, 538 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (citation omitted). Unlike in common-law tort actions, "we do not limit recovery of damages for emotional distress t......
  • Terpstra v. State, WD 80967
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 2, 2019
    ...motions.’ " Kerr v. Mo. Veterans Comm'n , 537 S.W.3d 865, 880 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (quoting Wilkins v. Bd. of Regents of Harris-Stowe State Univ. , 519 S.W.3d 526, 541 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) ). The Defendants' brief alleges that the Defendants objected on the basis of relevance during the tes......
  • Kerr v. Mo. Veterans Comm'n
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 2017
    ...a motion in limine[;] ... [a] motion in limine, by itself, preserves nothing for appeal." Wilkins v. Bd. of Regents of Harris-Stowe State Univ. , 519 S.W.3d 526, 541 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). "After the denial of its motion in limine, a party ‘is required to object......
  • Kim v. Mercy Clinic Springfield Cmtys.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 22, 2018
    ...other grounds in Badahman [v. Catering St. Louis], 395 S.W.3d [29] at 40 [ (Mo. banc 2013) ] ). Wilkins v. Bd. of Regents of Harris-Stowe State U. , 519 S.W.3d 526, 544-45 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (emphasis added). Here, Clinic submitted motions for directed verdict at the close of Dr. Kim's ev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 9 PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EACH STATE
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Insurance Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Deskbook
    • Invalid date
    ...Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81, 87 (Mo. 2010).[75] . Wilkins v. Board of Regents of Harris-Stowe State Univ., 519 S.W.3d 526 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).[76] . Blanks v. Fluor Corp., 450 S.W.3d 308, 401 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Gilliland v. Missouri Athletic Club, 273 S.W.3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT