hostile work environment claim in Missouri

2021Thus, the majority contends that Williams’ administrative complaint is “virtually identical in substance” to the charge in Alhalabi v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 300 S.W.3d 518 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009), where the Eastern District found that a hostile work environment claim was adequately exhausted.

2021In that event, much like the Court in Alhalabi v. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, 300 S.W.3d 518, 526 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009), we must end up in the same place: that Williams’s 2015 Charge (as amended by the 2016 Charge) has adequately pled facts placing the City on notice of a hostile work environment claim.

2024The Missouri Human Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee based on their sex. § 213.055.1. 2 To successfully allege a hostile work environment claim based on sexual harassment, Holmes was required to demonstrate: (1) he “is a member of a protected group; (2) [he] was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) [his] gender was a contributing factor in the harassment; and (4) a term, condition or privilege of [his] employment was affected by the harassment.” Darks v. Jackson Cnty., 601 S.W.3d 247 , 255–56 (Mo. App. 2020) (quoting Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W

2024Shiffman contends the trial court should have applied the hostile work environment standard as set out in Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W.3d 659 (Mo. banc 2009).

2022“Hostile work environment claims” differ from “discrete act” claims because a hostile work environment involves repeated conduct “where liability is based on the cumulative effects of individual acts.” Williams v. City of Kansas City, 641 S.W.3d 302 , 329 n.9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting Tisch v. DST Sys., Inc., 368 S.W.3d 245, 254 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (internal quotations omitted)).

2021Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002); see also Tisch v. DST Sys., Inc., 368 S.W.3d 245, 253-54 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (distinguishing a hostile work environment claim, which “by [its] very nature . . . involves repeated conduct, where liability is based on the cumulative effects of individual acts,” from claims related to discrete acts like termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2023Id. at 196-97 , 201- 02.

2021See McKinney v. City of Kansas City, 576 S.W.3d 194, 199 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019); Tisch v. DST Sys., Inc., 368 S.W.3d 245, 254 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).

2025See e.g., id. (collecting cases in finding that appellant would have to demonstrate invalidity of two theories of recovery where both were submitted in single verdict form); Mathes v. Sher Express, L.L.C., 200 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (noting that a single verdict form used to submit multiple theories of liability “would also have the potentially salutary purpose of avoiding a retrial in the event that some error or insufficiency of evidence was found in only one of the verdict directing theories”).

2025See e.g., id. (collecting cases in finding that appellant would have to demonstrate invalidity of two theories of recovery where both were submitted in single verdict form); Mathes v. Sher Express, L.L.C., 200 S.W.3d 97, 107 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (noting that a single verdict form used to submit multiple theories of liability “would also have the potentially salutary purpose of avoiding a retrial in the event that some error or insufficiency of evidence was found in only one of the verdict directing theories”).

2025See Miller-Weaver v. Dieomatic Inc., 657 S.W.3d 245 , 257 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (distinguishing from Tisch and finding the employee alleged facts to support a hostile work environment claim and the continuing violation theory when she alleged, due to her race, she was paid less, given fewer responsibilities, complained about discrimination and racist emblems on-site, and given lower performance evaluations because of her complaints).

2024“The jury’s verdict will be reversed only if there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the jury’s conclusion.” Keveney v. Mo. Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Mo. banc 2010). 4 ANALYSIS Evidence of Harassment Based on Sex In Point I, the DOC asserts the circuit court erred in denying its motion for a JNOV on the hostile work environment claim because the evidence was insufficient to show that Holmes was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on his sex.

2022After the entry of summary judgment, the plaintiff wanted to use those same facts to support a hostile work environment claim, using “essentially a new method of contesting the same issues that were ruled on in [employer’s] favor on summary judgment.” Id. at 257 .

2022In Tisch, we affirmed the trial court’s exercise of its discretion in refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend his petition, four days before trial, to include a hostile work environment claim. 368 S.W.3d at 251, 258 .

2021Rattigan v. Gonzales, 503 F. Supp.2d 56 , 81-82 (D.D.C. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 11 Because a hostile work environment claim involves the overall working environment, rather than particular employment decisions, “[t]o be properly exhausted, that claim must be separately raised in the administrative charge, because it is not reasonably related to a claim of a discrete act of discrimination, such as demotion.” Gipson v. KAS Snacktime Co., 83 F.3d 225, 229 (8th Cir. 1996) (MHRA claim), overruled on other grounds by Nat’l R.R.

2021Rattigan v. Gonzales, 503 F. Supp.2d 56 , 81-82 (D.D.C. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 11 Because a hostile work environment claim involves the overall working environment, rather than particular employment decisions, “[t]o be properly exhausted, that claim must be separately raised in the administrative charge, because it is not reasonably related to a claim of a discrete act of discrimination, such as demotion.” Gipson v. KAS Snacktime Co., 83 F.3d 225, 229 (8th Cir. 1996) (MHRA claim), overruled on other grounds by Nat’l R.R.

2021Louis Fire Dep’t, 506 S.W.3d 394, 400 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting Alhalabi, 300 S.W.3d at 525 ).

2021Because a hostile work environment claim involves repeated acts of harassment which make a plaintiff’s working conditions abusive or intolerable, these cases hold that “the inclusion in an EEOC charge of a discrete act or acts, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a hostile-work-environment claim for purposes of exhaustion.” Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359, 362 (6th Cir. 2010).

2019To determine whether a plaintiff has presented a submissible case “by offering evidence to support every element necessary for liability,” the evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences and disregarding evidence and inferences that conflict with that verdict.” Moody v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 539 S.W.3d 784, 791 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (citation omitted).

2012In Morgan , the Supreme Court explained that hostile work environment claims differ from discrete act claims in that by “[t]heir very nature [they] involve[ ] repeated conduct,” where liability is based on the “cumulative effects of individual acts.” Id. 6 A continuing violation is established when the plaintiff shows “a series of closely-related, similar events that occurred within the same general time period and stemmed from the same source” that “continued into the limitations period.” Pollock, 11 S.W.3d at 763 (“As in most claims of hostile work environment harassment, the discriminatory

2012In Morgan , the Supreme Court explained that hostile work environment claims differ from discrete act claims in that by “[t]heir very nature [they] involve[ ] repeated conduct,” where liability is based on the “cumulative effects of individual acts.” Id. 6 A continuing violation is established when the plaintiff shows “a series of closely-related, similar events that occurred within the same general time period and stemmed from the same source” that “continued into the limitations period.” Pollock, 11 S.W.3d at 763 (“As in most claims of hostile work environment harassment, the discriminatory

2009Wilson Co., 966 F.Supp. 858, 861 (E.D.Mo.1997), that a hostile work environment claim, alleging continuing racial harassment must be separately raised in the administrative charge, because it is not reasonably related to a claim of a discrete act of discrimination.