COA reverses summary judgment on discrimination claims

Summary

• Missouri Court of Appeals reversed part of a summary judgment in an employment discrimination lawsuit against Jackson County.
• The court found conflicting evidence created genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination claims occurring after Oct. 13, 2019.
• Claims arising before Oct. 13, 2019, remain barred due to the statute of limitations.
• The court emphasized the importance of clearly documenting dates and factual allegations in employment discrimination litigation.

In a race and sex discrimination lawsuit, summary judgment was improperly granted where the record contained materials establishing two contradictory accounts of the essential facts, the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District ruled on June 23, reversing in part.

A white female over the age of 40, Amber Ledbetter worked for Jackson County from March 1995 through January 2021 as the population control coordinator in the Jackson County jail.

In March 2016, Ledbetter was temporarily assigned to be the interim records administrator of the records department, although she retained her prior position.

Ledbetter was asked to remain in the records department but expressed her preference to return to population control. Her supervisor tried to keep her in the records department, was dismissive of and nonresponsive to Ledbetter and did not allow her to voice her concerns.

On several occasions, Ledbetter complained about her supervisor and additionally reported that she had been stripped of her duties and felt like she was being retaliated against.

Ledbetter posted an image on Facebook and was accused of being racially insensitive and inappropriate. She was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation and her supervisor recommended she be demoted.

In January 2021, Ledbetter resigned, writing in her letter that it was because of “unfair treatment, a hostile environment, and fear of retaliation.”

Ledbetter subsequently filed suit against the county, alleging sex discrimination, age discrimination, race discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment.

The county moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the motion but did not state the reason for its decision.

Ledbetter appealed.

Writing for the court, Judge Janet Sutton reversed in part, joined by Judges Thomas N. Chapman and Karen King Mitchell.

Ledbetter argued that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment based on the statute of limitations affirmative defense because it was not pled in the answer to her petition.

The county countered that in its amended answer, it contended that Ledbetter was time-barred from litigating any claims arising before Oct. 13, 2019, because she brought the action on Oct. 13, 2021, citing the two-year statute of limitations in section 213.111.1.

Although Ledbetter told the court that she alleged in her charge of discrimination that her claims constituted a continuing violation, she failed to expressly address the statute of limitations ground directly on appeal, the court said.

“Ledbetter’s failure to do so is problematic because, without the circuit court’s order specifying its reason for granting summary judgment, we presume the circuit court based its decision on the grounds raised in [the county’s] motion for summary judgment which, in the instant case, includes a statute of limitations defense,” the court wrote.

Turning to the events that occurred within the statute of limitations period, Ledbetter argued that the circuit court improperly used the burden-shifting analysis and that the county did not meet its burden because she made a prima facie case for each respective claim.

Based on the summary judgment record and the county’s non-compliance with Rule 74.04(c)(2) and (3) — with many of Ledbetter’s facts therefore deemed admitted — the court agreed that questions remained.

“In reviewing [the county’s] and Ledbetter’s statements of uncontroverted material facts with the accompanying responses to determine if Ledbetter made a prima facie case for each respective claim based on events occurring after Oct. 13, 2019, we found a number of problems within those documents which, at a minimum, create controverted facts precluding summary judgment for [the county],” the court wrote.

Additionally, the court was unable to decipher the timing of much of the alleged discriminatory conduct and acts of reprisal because many of Ledbetter’s statements of uncontroverted material facts failed to include dates.

“It is crucial to determine the timing of facts Ledbetter alleges because … the statute of limitations bars any claims for events prior to Oct. 13, 2019, since Ledbetter failed on appeal to challenge the grant of summary judgment on statutes of limitations grounds,” the court noted.

Examples of Ledbetter’s alleged facts without dates included that she went to work every day afraid she was going to be fired, that her supervisor excluded her from meetings she needed to attend to complete her duties and that when she returned to work in population control, her supervisor told her and her staff that she was no longer allowed to communicate with the courts, which was a key function of her job.

The county’s denials and supporting citations only created “further confusion” in the record, the court said.

“[W]e find that the summary judgment record, when viewed in the light most favorable to Ledbetter, contains materials establishing two contradictory accounts of the essential facts,” the court held. “As a result, we find that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment as to claims based on events that occurred after Oct. 13, 2019.”

Kansas City attorney Theresa E. Bullington of the County Counselor’s Office, who represented Jackson County, said the ruling had two takeaways for lawyers.

“One, the court is seriously considering the statute of limitations when looking at [discrimination] claims,” she said. “And two, attorneys need to make sure that petitions are clear, or on the defense side, requesting clarity on dates is really important.”

David Lunceford of The Lunceford Law Firm in Lees Summit, who represented Ledbetter, did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is Ledbetter v. Jackson County, Missouri, No. WD88095.