Young v. Mo. Dep't of Corr.

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Alok Ahuja, Judge
• Citation: Young v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 691 S.W.3d 815 (Mo. App. 2024)
• Docket Number: WD 85933
• Decision Date: 02 April 2024
• Parties: Beatrice YOUNG, Respondent, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant.

691 S.W.3d 815

Beatrice YOUNG, Respondent,

v.MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellant.

WD 85933

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western Distinct.

Filed: April 2, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, The Honorable Patrick W. Campbell, Judge

Andrew Bailey, Riley A. O’Shaughnessy, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellant.

Christina J. Nielsen, Arlington, VA, for Respondent.

Before Division One: Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Cynthia L. Martin and Thomas N. Chapman, JJ.

Alok Ahuja, Judge

Beatrice Young sued her former employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections (the "Department" or "DOC"), in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. Young alleged that she had been discriminated against, and subjected to harassment, based on her race, sex, and national origin, and in retaliation for her internal complaints of discrimination and harassment. Following a five-day trial, a jury rejected Young’s discrimination claims, but awarded her actual and punitive damages for workplace harassment, and for retaliation. The circuit court later awarded Young attorney’s fees and costs.

DOC appeals. On appeal, it challenges the judgment for Young on her claim for gender-based harassment occurring prior to August 28, 2017, and the award of punitive damages to Young on that claim. DOC also seeks reversal of the attorney’s fee award. We conclude that the Department was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Young’s claim for pre-August 28, 2017 harassment. In light of our reversal of that part of the circuit court’s judgment, we also reverse the circuit court’s award of attorney’s fees, and remand to the circuit court for it to consider Young’s motion for attorney’s fees anew. Given our disposition, we deny the separate motion Young filed in this Court for attorney’s fees on appeal.

Factual Background

Beatrice Young was born in Liberia, and immigrated to the United States in 2003, when she was eighteen years old. Young began working for the Department of Corrections in December 2012 as a Corrections Officer I (CO-I). As a CO-I, Young would provide security to prisoners and prison visitors, conduct searches and inmate counts, and supervise prisoners’ movements and activities.

In February 2016, Young was promoted to a Corrections Officer II (CO-II) position with the rank of Sergeant, and was transferred to the Kansas City Reentry Center ("KCRC"). Upon arriving at KCRC, Young was assigned a specific male Lieutenant¹ as her supervisor.

On July 25, 2016, Young made an internal complaint that Lieutenant was discriminating against her based on her national origin, race, and gender. Among other things, Young alleged that Lieutenant made disparaging remarks about her country of origin, and said that the ethnic food she would bring for lunch "smell[ed] weird." Young also alleged that Lieutenant undercut her authority as a supervisor by countermanding her scheduling decisions and her instructions to subordinates.

After Young made her complaint, Lieutenant made two performance-related entries in Young’s personnel file (referred to as "log notes"). During its investigation of Young’s complaints in 2016, DOC’s Human Resources staff determined that Lieutenant’s log note entries were improper retaliation for Young’s internal complaint of discrimination. Human Resources also found that Lieutenant had subjected Young "to harassment and unprofessionalism" by joking about Young’s homeland, making changes to the shift rosters Young had prepared, and overriding her directives to her subordinate employees. Human Resources also found that Lieutenant was "less than truthful" during its investigation. Based on its substantiation of Young’s complaint, DOC disciplined Lieutenant by suspending him without pay for three days.

On November 9, 2016, Young had instructed CO-I employees that they should check every two hours on an inmate who was in administrative segregation, and offer the inmate bathroom access, A CO-I employee (the "Harassing Officer") complained to other employees about Young’s directive. The Harassing Officer called Young a "fat ass cunt," and stated that, "if she … wanted the offender … to use the bathroom every two hours, she could get off her fat ass and do it herself." Believing that the comment referenced Young, and that it violated DOC policies, another CO-I employee (the "Complaining Officer") made an internal complaint against the Harassing Officer.

Young was not present when the Harassing Officer’s comment was made. She heard about the November 2016 statement from the Complaining Officer the same day, however. She testified that news of the Harassing Officer’s statement quickly traveled through the employee and inmate populations at KCRC. She testified that "[i]nmates were asking, Ms. Young, I’m so sorry. Ms. Young, I’m so sorry." Young testified that learning of the Harassing Officer’s statement made her feel ashamed, embarrassed and humiliated, and that "[i]t made my job so difficult to do." Young testified that the Harassing Officer was part of Lieutenant’s clique.

Human Resources staff at DOC investigated the Complaining Officer’s internal complaint concerning the November 2016 statement. Human Resources concluded that it could not substantiate that the Harassing Officer’s statement referred to Young. No disciplinary action was taken against the Harassing Officer for the November 2016 statement.

Young also contended that other DOC employees made disparaging comments about her, that she was subject to unfounded allegations of misconduct, and that she was given less desirable work shifts and denied a promotion. Among other things, Young presented evidence that another CO-I employee, who was himself African-American, referred to Young as "Africa" over the radio on October 28, 2017. Young asserted that the harassment and adverse employment actions were motivated by her race, gender, or national origin. Young also contended that the Department failed to adequately investigate her claims of discrimination and harassment.

Young resigned from DOC in March 2018.

Young filed her original petition for damages against the Department in the Circuit Court of Jackson County on December 26, 2018. On March 25, 2021, she filed her Fifth Amended Petition. The Fifth Amended Petition alleged five counts. It alleged that DOC had discriminated against Young based on her race, sex, and national origin; that she was subjected to harassment because of her race, sex, and national origin; and that the Department retaliated against her for complaining about the discrimination and harassment she had suffered.

Young’s Fifth Amended Petition made new allegations concerning the actions taken, and statements made, by Lieutenant, which had led to the filing of her internal complaint against Lieutenant on July 25, 2016. The new allegations also alleged that Lieutenant had made negative log entries in her personnel file in retaliation for her July 25, 2016 complaint.

The Department moved to dismiss the new allegations contained in Young’s Fifth Amended Petition. It argued that Young’s new allegations were time-barred because Young had failed to make a timely administrative complaint to the Missouri Human Rights Commission, and had failed to timely file suit, concerning those allegations.

The circuit court granted DOC’s motion to dismiss on May 20, 2021. The circuit court’s order noted that, "[i]n Plaintiff’s Fifth [Amended] Petition, Plaintiff brings new allegations based on acts which occurred on or about July 25, 2016." The court noted that Young had not filed an administrative complaint with the Missouri Human Rights Commission until November 29, 2017, and had not filed suit until December 25, 2018. Because the Missouri Human Rights Act sets a 180-day deadline for filing an administrative complaint, § 213.075.1, RSMo, and a two-year statute of limitations for filing suit, § 213.111.1, RSMo, the circuit court granted DOC’s motion to dismiss. The court’s dismissal order specified that "[a]ny claims of Plaintiff arising from facts occurring prior to June 2, 2017, are hereby dismissed with prejudice."²

A five-day jury trial began on August 16, 2022. DOC moved for a directed verdict at the close of Young’s evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence; both motions were denied.

At the conclusion of the evidence, Young submitted multiple claims to the jury. The verdict directors for Young’s claims specified whether the relevant conduct occurred before or after August 28, 2017 - the effective date of significant substantive amendments to the Missouri Human Rights Act. See S.B. 43, 99th Gen. Assembly, 1st Reg. Session, 2017 Mo Laws 410.

Young submitted separate claims for discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin, each based on conduct occurring on or after August 28, 2017. Young argued that the Department had engaged in unlawful discrimination by failing to adequately train her; by failing to promote or rehire her; by changing her work schedule; by placing unfair log notes in her personnel file; and by failing to adequately investigate her claims of harassment and discrimination. The court also submitted a retaliation claim to the jury, based on the same post-August 28, 2017 time period, and the same alleged adverse employment actions.

Young submitted two separate harassment claims to the jury - one for gender-based harassment occurring prior to August 28, 2017 (the claim at issue in this appeal), and one for harassment based on race, sex, or national origin occurring on or after August 28, 2017.

The jury returned defense verdicts on all three of Young’s discrimination claims. It found in Young’s favor on her claims for harassment both before and after August 28, 2017, and on her claim of post-August 28, 2017 retaliation. For actions occurring before August 28, 2017, the jury awarded Young actual damages of $50,000, and punitive damages of $50,000. For the actions occurring on or after August 28, 2017 (harassment and retaliation), the jury...