Court finds charter schools protected by sovereign immunity

A bus driver’s wrongful-discharge claim against a St. Louis charter school was properly dismissed because charter schools are protected by sovereign immunity, according to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

The Eastern District held for the first time that charter schools are public schools and public entities for immunity purposes.

“In plain terms, charter schools are treated exactly like public schools for purposes of risk management and liability. It logically follows, then, that charter schools are also treated exactly like public schools for purposes of immunity from liability,” Judge Lisa Van Amburg wrote for the court.

The Eastern District’s six-page decision also held that the charter school did not waive its immunity by procuring coverage under the Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund.

“The case is a clarification of what the law unambiguously points to, that charter schools are public schools and on the same footing for immunity purposes as traditional school districts,” said Timothy Reichardt, a St. Louis attorney with Behr, McCarter & Potter. Reichardt represented Lift for Life Academy in the discrimination action brought by Kquawanda Moore.

“The decision serves public policy purposes. The court upholds their protection as publically funded entities,” Reichardt said.

“Moore’s assertion that the legislature intended to expose charter schools to greater tort liability than that faced by other public entities is without merit. The Academy is protected by sovereign immunity, so Moore’s common-law wrongful discharge claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is barred as a matter of law,” the court said.

Charter schools

Moore was fired from her job as a bus driver for the Lift for Life Academy in October 2013. She brought a wrongful discharge claim, arguing that she was fired based on her sexual orientation. The trial court granted the school’s motion for summary judgment, finding that charter schools are public schools under Section 160.405.

Moore argued on appeal that the legislature intended to expose charter schools to broader tort liability since Chapter 160 requires charter schools to carry tort liability insurance, but the statute covering public entities merely allows other public bodies to do so.

“We decline to draw such a profoundly consequential inference from this distinction. Legislative intent is determined by considering the whole act and its purposes and by seeking to avoid unjust or absurd results,” the Eastern District said.

MOPERM

The appellate court pointed out that charter schools receive public funding and are subject to the same laws and rules imposed on public schools in areas such as open records requirements, auditing, employee retirement benefits and board member liability. The opinion emphasized that instead of expressly waiving charter school immunity, the legislature expressly authorized charter schools to satisfy the law’s insurance requirement through coverage as public entities with the Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund.

“If the legislature had intended to leave charter schools exposed to unlimited tort liability beyond the narrow claims covered by MOPERM, contrary to their treatment as public schools in every other respect, it could have said so directly and would not have deemed MOPERM coverage alone sufficient to satisfy the tort liability insurance requirement of §160.405.4(4),” Van Amburg wrote.

The court also rejected a claim by Moore arguing that another provision essentially says that no laws apply to charter schools except those in Chapter 160.

“In sum, the trial court correctly concluded charter schools are public schools for purposes of sovereign immunity,” the Eastern District concluded.

In a footnote, the court added that sexual orientation is not a protected category under the Missouri Human Rights Act.

“Had Moore’s claim alleged discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, or disability, her claim would be recognized under the MHRA, which expressly waives sovereign immunity for public employers,” Van Amburg wrote.

St. Louis attorney Douglas Ponder represented Moore. He did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is Moore v. Lift for Life Academy Inc., ED102765.