David Barrett sued Cole County, Missouri in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, raising claims of employment discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and requesting judicial review of his employment termination under section 536.150. The trial court dismissed Barrett’s amended petition, and Barrett appealed the decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Factual Overview
David Barrett worked as a Deputy Sheriff for Cole County for about fifteen years. In February 2021, Barrett was suspended with pay during an internal investigation into allegations of abuse of authority, incompetence, and offensive conduct/language. The investigation concluded that the allegation of incompetence was sustained. Barrett filed a grievance challenging the investigation’s findings and a personnel complaint with the Sheriff. On February 25, 2021, the Sheriff terminated Barrett’s employment, stating that he had “lost trust in [Barrett’s] ability to perform [his] job.”
Barrett filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and later filed a petition for damages in the Circuit Court of Cole County. Barrett’s amended petition alleged that he had discovered his African American ancestry through genetic testing and had disclosed his race to the Sheriff about sixty days before his termination. The amended petition also alleged that Barrett had advised a Black co-worker to pursue legal action against Cole County for wrongful demotion based on race.
Legal Analysis
Jurisdiction: The court determined that it had jurisdiction over Barrett’s appeal, despite the dismissal of the amended petition without prejudice, because Barrett elected to stand on his petition and not plead further.
MHRA Claims
Race or Color Discrimination: The court found that the amended petition sufficiently pleaded that Barrett’s race or color was the motivating factor in his termination, based on the alleged timeline of events and the reasonable inferences drawn from the facts. The court emphasized that pleading direct evidence of discriminatory intent need not survive a motion to dismiss, and that the particular conduct of Barrett and similarly situated deputies concerns the weight of evidence to prove employment discrimination, which is not evaluated at this stage of the proceedings.
Perceived Race or Color Discrimination: The court concluded that the amended petition adequately pleaded that the Sheriff’s perception of Barrett’s race or color was the motivating factor in his termination, based on the alleged facts and timeline. The court noted that the delayed temporal connection between Barrett’s disclosure of his race and his termination may weigh against a fact-finder’s acceptance of the proposition that the Sheriff’s perception was a motivating factor, but for a motion to dismiss, the amended petition sufficiently pleaded this essential element.
Retaliation: The court determined that the amended petition sufficiently pleaded that Barrett’s opposition to race discrimination against himself and his co-worker was the motivating factor in his termination. The court acknowledged that the time between Barrett’s first report of assisting his co-worker and his termination will be relevant to whether Barrett will prevail in persuading a fact-finder of a causal connection, but the court cannot say as a matter of law that the amended petition fails to allege ultimate facts essential to state a claim for unlawful retaliation under the MHRA.
Associational Discrimination: The court found that the amended petition adequately pleaded that Barrett’s association with his Black co-worker, namely supporting the co-worker’s discrimination claim against Cole County, was the motivating factor in his termination. The court recognized that the delayed temporal connection between Barrett’s support of his co-worker and his termination may weigh against a fact-finder’s acceptance of the proposition that the support was a motivating factor, but for a motion to dismiss, the amended petition sufficiently pleaded this essential element.
Judicial Review under Section 536.150: The court concluded that Barrett, as an at-will employee, failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a right to section 536.150 judicial review of either the disposition of his grievances or the section 57.275 hearing, as he had no property right supporting such review and did not adequately plead that his liberty interests were impaired. The court affirmed the dismissal of Barrett’s claims seeking section 536.150 judicial review, reversed the dismissal of his MHRA claims, and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Schrag on Law 