Susan Hays sued the State of Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, raising claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County, the court awarded Hays attorneys’ fees with a 1.5 multiplier. DOC appeals the trial court’s judgment applying the multiplier to the award of attorneys’ fees.
Factual Overview
Susan Hays prevailed in a March 2023 jury trial on her MHRA claim of sexual harassment against the State of Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC). The jury awarded Hays $125,000 in actual damages and $400,000 in punitive damages. Hays then moved for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 213.111.2, seeking a lodestar amount of $299,704.25 and a 1.5 multiplier for a total of $449,556.37. DOC opposed the motion, arguing that the lodestar and multiplier requested were unreasonable. The trial court granted Hays’s motion for attorneys’ fees as requested.
Legal Analysis
Preservation of Claim for Appellate Review: The court addressed the issue of preservation as a threshold matter to appellate review. DOC failed to adhere to Rule 84.04(e) by not stating whether or how the claim was preserved in its statement of preservation and standard of review. The court found that DOC did not present the trial court with an opportunity to consider whether sovereign immunity bars the application of a multiplier to attorneys’ fees under the MHRA. As DOC failed to preserve the claim for appellate review, the court dismissed the appeal.
Sovereign Immunity and Jurisdiction: DOC argued that sovereign immunity may be raised for the first time on appeal, as it is similar to the threshold issues of standing and subject matter jurisdiction. However, the court found that DOC’s efforts to frame its unpreserved claim in jurisdictional terms were contrary to Missouri jurisprudence set forth in J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla. The court held that the question on appeal concerned a statutory limit on remedies and did not implicate either Hays’s standing to sue DOC or the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear MHRA claims and rule on requests for attorneys’ fees.
Appellate Attorneys’ Fees:The court granted Hays’s motion for appellate attorneys’ fees, as the MHRA’s authorization for a prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees includes appellate attorneys’ fees. Hays briefed and orally argued the jurisdictional and merits-based issues presented by DOC’s appeal, and the court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that Hays raised. The court remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees.
Schrag on Law 