Plaintiff Steve Shiffman sued defendant Kansas City Royals Baseball Club, LLC, in the Jackson County Circuit Court raising claims of age and religious discrimination, retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), and hostile work environment. The circuit court concluded with a summary judgment in favor of the Kansas City Royals, and Shiffman appealed.
Factual Overview
Steve Shiffman was employed by the Kansas City Royals from October 2010 to March 2020, eventually serving as the Senior Director of Ticket Sales and Services at Kauffman Stadium. Shiffman’s dismissal came after the Royals underwent a change in ownership and subsequent reevaluation of organizational roles by the new leadership. The reevaluation concluded that Shiffman’s position was redundant, leading to its elimination without replacement. Prior to his termination, Shiffman alleges he experienced age and religious discrimination, retaliation, and was subjected to a hostile work environment, in violation of the MHRA. Specifically, Shiffman pointed to an incident in a marketing meeting where a coworker made derogatory comments about Jews, directly addressing Shiffman, which contributed to a claim of religious discrimination. Additionally, Shiffman contends his termination was closely tied to his approaching sixtieth birthday, forming the basis for his age discrimination claim.
Legal Analysis
Religious Discrimination and Retaliation: The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework due to the lack of direct evidence of discrimination. It found that Shiffman failed to establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination as he could not prove that his religion was a motivating factor in his termination. Similarly, for the retaliation claim, Shiffman was unable to demonstrate a causal connection between any complaints of discrimination and the adverse action of his position being eliminated.
Hostile Work Environment: The court assessed whether the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Shiffman’s employment. It concluded that a single derogatory remark did not meet the threshold for creating an abusive working environment, noting that for a hostile work environment claim to succeed, there must be evidence of persistent harassment that is both subjectively and objectively offensive.
Legal Standards and Frameworks: In its analysis, the court noted that both Missouri and federal law guide the adjudication of claims under the MHRA. It emphasized that a tangible employment action or evidence of an abusive working environment is necessary to support a hostile work environment claim under the MHRA.
The court’s ultimate conclusion was that Shiffman failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of religious discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, leading to the affirmation of summary judgment.
Schrag on Law 