Plaintiff C.J. Glore sued defendant Potosi R-III School District in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of sex discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and associational discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. The court is considering defendant Potosi R-III School District’s motion to dismiss some of Plaintiff’s claims.
Factual Overview
Plaintiff, a recent graduate of Potosi High School, alleges discrimination due to his sex, claiming the district’s teachers and administrators made demeaning comments about LGBTQ+ individuals and allowed students to do the same. He also claims the district retaliated against him after he reported this discrimination. The procedural history includes Plaintiff filing a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, which eventually led to the issuance of a Notice of Right to Sue, and the timely filing of this action. The complaint details instances of alleged discrimination and harassment, invoking both state and federal statutes against the defendant, a public school district in Missouri.
Legal Analysis
Timeliness and Continuing Violation: The court addressed defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the timeliness of the claims under the MHRA, which requires a complaint to be filed within 180 days of the alleged discrimination. The court found Plaintiff’s allegations of a continuing violation plausible, as at least one act occurred within the filing period and the claim was part of a series of interrelated events, allowing the court to consider the entire continuing violation.
Counts I and II – Sex Discrimination and Harassment: The court examined whether Plaintiff’s status as a member of a protected class was a motivating factor in the discrimination he faced, focusing on allegations of sex discrimination. Despite defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s claims were effectively about sexual orientation—a status not explicitly protected under the MHRA—the court found that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged discrimination based on sex, referencing Missouri Supreme Court cases that clarified the interpretation of sex discrimination to include sexual stereotyping.
Associational Discrimination (Count IV): The court rejected the defendant’s arguments against Plaintiff’s associational discrimination claim, affirming that the MHRA prohibits discrimination against individuals because of their association with persons protected by the statute. It found that Plaintiff had adequately alleged discrimination based on his association with individuals who did not conform to sex stereotypes.
Aiding and Abetting Discrimination (Count V): The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Count V, agreeing that the complaint lacked sufficient allegations that the defendant affirmatively acted to aid or abet discrimination by others, as required under Missouri law for an aiding and abetting claim. The court’s granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motions to dismiss. Counts I through IV will proceed, while Count V is dismissed without prejudice.
Schrag on Law 