Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Minze v. Missouri Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2025Safety, 437 S.W.3d 271, 275-76 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014)). 2016“A retaliation claim is not conditioned on the success of the underlying discrimination or harassment claim.” Minze, 437 S.W.3d at 275-76 . | 1 | 2 |
Richard Shore, M.D. v. The Children's Mercy Hospital and Dr. Gerald Woodsgreen2 sentences2023“To establish a claim for retaliation, the employee must prove: (1) that she complained of discrimination; (2) that the employer took adverse action against her; and (3) that the complaint and the adverse action are causally related.” Kerr v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 512 S.W.3d 798, 814 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citing Shore, 477 S.W.3d at 735 ); see also Clark v. AT&T Mobility Servs., L.L.C., 623 S.W.3d 197 , 208 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (citing Bram v. AT&T Mobility Servs., 2 All Section references are to RSMo (2016), unless otherwise noted. 14 LLC, 564 S.W.3d 787, 799 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018)) (no 2023Regarding the complaint element, “[t]he complaint of discrimination does not have to involve actual discrimination for a retaliation claim to stand.” Kerr, 512 S.W.3d at 814 (quoting Shore, 477 S.W.3d at 735 ). | 1 | 2 |
Shana Donathan v. Oakley Grain, Inc.green2 sentences2024We therefore apply the McDonnel Douglas burden-shifting framework. 29 “To survive a motion for summary judgment on a retaliation claim, [a plaintiff] must offer direct evidence of retaliation or create an inference of retaliation under the McDonnel Douglas burden-shifting framework.” Donathan v. Oakley Grain, Inc., 861 F.3d 735, 739 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 2024Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, “the plaintiff bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case” showing he “participated in protected conduct and suffered an adverse employment action.” Id. at 740 . | 1 | 1 |
Bateman v. Platte Countygreen1 sentence2024See Bateman v. Platte Cnty., 363 S.W.3d 39, 42 (Mo. 2012) (statute of limitations waived where not pleaded by defendant as an affirmative defense); Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 269 (Mo. 2012) (noting that “[a] defendant who does not raise a statute of limitations defense in the trial court waives the right to assert that defense”; citing Longhibler v. State, 832 S.W.2d 908, 911 (Mo. 1992)); Williams v. City of Kansas City, 641 S.W.3d 302 , 329 n. 9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (en banc) (holding that “‘the timely filing requirement [for administrative complaints under § 213.075.1] is subject to th | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Ford Motor Co.green1 sentence2024In Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. 2007), the Missouri Supreme Court held that plaintiffs asserting claims of employment discrimination under § 213.055 need only prove that a protected characteristic “contributed to the unfair treatment” they received; it was not necessary for the 28 plaintiff to prove “that discrimination was a substantial or determining factor in an employment decision.” Id. at 819; see also Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W.3d 659, 664-66 (Mo. 2009) (applying the “contributing factor” standard to a retaliation claim brought under § 213.070, RSMo). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schnakenberggreen1 sentence2024See Bateman v. Platte Cnty., 363 S.W.3d 39, 42 (Mo. 2012) (statute of limitations waived where not pleaded by defendant as an affirmative defense); Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 269 (Mo. 2012) (noting that “[a] defendant who does not raise a statute of limitations defense in the trial court waives the right to assert that defense”; citing Longhibler v. State, 832 S.W.2d 908, 911 (Mo. 1992)); Williams v. City of Kansas City, 641 S.W.3d 302 , 329 n. 9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (en banc) (holding that “‘the timely filing requirement [for administrative complaints under § 213.075.1] is subject to th | 1 | 1 |
Dorris v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Bateman v. Platte Cnty., 363 S.W.3d 39, 42 (Mo. 2012) (statute of limitations waived where not pleaded by defendant as an affirmative defense); Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 269 (Mo. 2012) (noting that “[a] defendant who does not raise a statute of limitations defense in the trial court waives the right to assert that defense”; citing Longhibler v. State, 832 S.W.2d 908, 911 (Mo. 1992)); Williams v. City of Kansas City, 641 S.W.3d 302 , 329 n. 9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (en banc) (holding that “‘the timely filing requirement [for administrative complaints under § 213.075.1] is subject to th | 1 | 1 |
Longhibler v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Bateman v. Platte Cnty., 363 S.W.3d 39, 42 (Mo. 2012) (statute of limitations waived where not pleaded by defendant as an affirmative defense); Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 269 (Mo. 2012) (noting that “[a] defendant who does not raise a statute of limitations defense in the trial court waives the right to assert that defense”; citing Longhibler v. State, 832 S.W.2d 908, 911 (Mo. 1992)); Williams v. City of Kansas City, 641 S.W.3d 302 , 329 n. 9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (en banc) (holding that “‘the timely filing requirement [for administrative complaints under § 213.075.1] is subject to th | 1 | 1 |
Betts-Lucas v. Hansongreen1 sentence2023See Betts-Lucas v. Hanson, 31 S.W.3d 484, 485 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (citing Williams v. Mercantile Bank of St. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Galaxy 1 Marketing, Inc.green1 sentence2023Regarding the causal element, “[a] contributing factor is a condition that ‘contributes a share in anything or has a part in producing the effect.’” Jones v. Galaxy 1 Mktg., Inc., 478 S.W.3d 556, 573 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).? | 1 | 1 |
Charlotte Jean Kerr v. The Curators of the University of Missourigreen2 sentences2023“To establish a claim for retaliation, the employee must prove: (1) that she complained of discrimination; (2) that the employer took adverse action against her; and (3) that the complaint and the adverse action are causally related.” Kerr v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 512 S.W.3d 798, 814 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citing Shore, 477 S.W.3d at 735 ); see also Clark v. AT&T Mobility Servs., L.L.C., 623 S.W.3d 197 , 208 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (citing Bram v. AT&T Mobility Servs., 2 All Section references are to RSMo (2016), unless otherwise noted. 14 LLC, 564 S.W.3d 787, 799 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018)) (no 2023Regarding the complaint element, “[t]he complaint of discrimination does not have to involve actual discrimination for a retaliation claim to stand.” Kerr, 512 S.W.3d at 814 (quoting Shore, 477 S.W.3d at 735 ). | 1 | 1 |
Juvenile Officer v. D. P.C. (In re Interest of B.N.C.)green2 sentences2023“To establish a claim for retaliation, the employee must prove: (1) that she complained of discrimination; (2) that the employer took adverse action against her; and (3) that the complaint and the adverse action are causally related.” Kerr v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 512 S.W.3d 798, 814 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citing Shore, 477 S.W.3d at 735 ); see also Clark v. AT&T Mobility Servs., L.L.C., 623 S.W.3d 197 , 208 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (citing Bram v. AT&T Mobility Servs., 2 All Section references are to RSMo (2016), unless otherwise noted. 14 LLC, 564 S.W.3d 787, 799 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018)) (no 2023See Clark, 623 S.W.3d at 203 (citing Bram, 564 S.W.3d at 795-96 ; see also Section 213.101.4, RSMo (Cum. | 1 | 1 |
Matthew D. Vacca, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Division of Workers' Compensation, and Brian May, Appellants/Cross-Respondents.green1 sentence2021Compare Vacca, 575 S.W.3d 223 (judicial estoppel appropriate where employee filed a retaliation claim against employer asserting he could do his job with disability accommodations while simultaneously asserting in a marriage dissolution action he was unable to work, a claim fundamentally at odds with his disability claim). | 1 | 1 |
Burnett v. Griffithgreen1 sentence2021Under the McGinnis Doctrine, “when a claim is submitted on the theory of respondeat superior and the jury returns inconsistent verdicts, exonerating the employee, but holding against the employer, the court must grant the employer judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” Burnett v. Griffith, 739 S.W.2d 712, 713 (Mo. banc 1987) (citing McGinnis v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. | 1 | 1 |
Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc.green2 sentences2020In Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 105 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1997), the First Circuit found an employee could bring a retaliation claim based on an accommodation request under section 12203(a), reasoning: It is questionable whether [the employee] fits within the literal language of the statute: he filed no charge, nor participated in any investigation. 2020In Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 105 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1997), the First Circuit found an employee could bring a retaliation claim based on an accommodation request under section 12203(a), reasoning: It is questionable whether [the employee] fits within the literal language of the statute: he filed no charge, nor participated in any investigation. | 1 | 1 |
Hervey v. Missouri Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2020“Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which is subject to de novo review on appeal.” Hervey v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 379 S.W.3d 156, 163 (Mo. banc 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Bromwell v. Nixongreen1 sentence2019Tuttle does not allege, however, that he cooperated with the investigation in Missouri or that the actions underlying the complaint took place in Missouri. 3 claim on which relief can be granted is solely a test of the adequacy of the petition." Id. (quoting Bromwell v. Nixon, 361 S.W.3d 393, 398 (Mo. banc 2012)). | 1 | 1 |
The Schumacher Group, Ltd. v. James Price Schumachergreen1 sentence2018See *614 The Schumacher Group, Ltd. v. Schumacher , 474 S.W.3d 615 , 624 n.11 (Mo. App. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Kiphart v. Community Federal Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen1 sentence2017The court in Kiphart v. Community Federal Savings & Loan Association, 729 S.W.2d 510, 516 (Mo. App. 1987), noted that “[t]he Restatement (Second) of Torts § 870 (1979) supplies the guidelines for the imposition of liability” under the prima facie tort theory. | 1 | 1 |
Barekman v. City of Republicgreen2 sentences2011Id. at 681-82 . 2011See Barekman v. City of Republic, 232 S.W.3d 675 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCrainey v. Kansas City Missouri School District
green
2 sentences2020The appeals court found a plaintiff must demonstrate a “good faith, reasonable belief that the conduct he or she opposed was prohibited by the MHRA in order to prevail on a retaliation claim.” Id. at 754 . 2015The complaint of discrimination does not have to involve actual discrimination for a retaliation claim to stand; “In general, as long as a plaintiff had a reasonable, good faith belief that there were grounds for a claim of discrimination or harassment, the success or failure of- a retaliation claim is analytically divorced from the merits of the underlying discrimination or harassment claim.” Id. (internaT quotation'omitted). | 4 | 2014–2021 |
Scott v. Department of Health & Senior Services
green
2 sentences2025In Point I, DOC challenges only the third element of Petifurd’s retaliation claim— whether a causal relationship existed between his complaints of discrimination/retaliation and his termination. 12 The requisite causal relationship exists where “the protected criterion was the motivating factor,” meaning “the employee’s protected classification actually played a role in the adverse action or decision and had a determinative influence 11 “A retaliation claim is not conditioned on the success of the underlying discrimination . . . claim.” Soto, 502 S.W.3d at 48 (quoting Minze v. Mo. Dep’t of Pub 2018Soto , 502 S.W.3d at 48 . "[I]t is irrelevant to a claim of retaliation that the act complained of was not legally actionable. | 2 | 2018–2025 |
Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights
green
1 sentence2024In Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. 2007), the Missouri Supreme Court held that plaintiffs asserting claims of employment discrimination under § 213.055 need only prove that a protected characteristic “contributed to the unfair treatment” they received; it was not necessary for the 28 plaintiff to prove “that discrimination was a substantial or determining factor in an employment decision.” Id. at 819; see also Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W.3d 659, 664-66 (Mo. 2009) (applying the “contributing factor” standard to a retaliation claim brought under § 213.070, RSMo). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Shelton v. City of Springfield
green
1 sentence2021Collateral Estoppel “[T]he doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, provides that when an issue has been judicially determined in one action, that same issue may not subsequently be relitigated in another action.” Shelton, 130 S.W.3d at 34 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sally J. Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc
green
2 sentences2020Heisler relied for this proposition on Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc., 318 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2003), which reasoned that ‘[t]he right to request an accommodation in good faith is no less a guarantee under the ADA than the right to file a complaint with the EEOC,’ and that ‘it would seem anomalous ... to think Congress intended no retaliation protection for employees who request a reasonable accommodation unless they also file a formal charge.’ Id. at 191 (quoting Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 105 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1997)). 2020Heisler relied for this proposition on Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc., 318 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2003), which reasoned that ‘[t]he right to request an accommodation in good faith is no less a guarantee under the ADA than the right to file a complaint with the EEOC,’ and that ‘it would seem anomalous ... to think Congress intended no retaliation protection for employees who request a reasonable accommodation unless they also file a formal charge.’ Id. at 191 (quoting Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 105 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1997)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Darrell Cope and the Missouri Democratic Party v. Michael L. Parson and Mike Kehoe
green
1 sentence2019Tuttle does not allege, however, that he cooperated with the investigation in Missouri or that the actions underlying the complaint took place in Missouri. 3 claim on which relief can be granted is solely a test of the adequacy of the petition." Id. (quoting Bromwell v. Nixon, 361 S.W.3d 393, 398 (Mo. banc 2012)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.