Jeanne Johnson sued the City of Kansas City, Missouri in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, raising claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Following a jury trial, the jury found in favor of Johnson on her claims. The City appealed the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Factual Overview
Johnson was employed by the City from 1999 until her termination on July 16, 2018. During her employment, she suffered multiple workplace injuries and underwent surgeries for carpal tunnel syndrome. In 2017, Johnson applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits while continuing to receive treatment. On October 31, 2017, Johnson’s physician cleared her to return to work, but the City did not allow her to do so. On March 9, 2018, Johnson filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR). The City terminated Johnson’s employment on July 16, 2018, citing reasons such as failure to report to work, excessive absences, and medical reasons.
Legal Analysis
Judicial Estoppel: The City argued that the trial court erred in declining to apply judicial estoppel to bar Johnson’s disability discrimination claim, asserting that Johnson made inconsistent claims before other entities. The Court of Appeals found that the City failed to establish that Johnson made statements in the SSDI proceedings or workers’ compensation proceedings that were truly inconsistent with her trial testimony, given the timeline of events. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply judicial estoppel.
Verdict Form and Future Economic Losses: The City contended that the trial court erred in refusing the City’s proffered verdict form, arguing that the form used allowed the jury to assess future economic losses not referenced in the damages instruction. The Court of Appeals found that the City failed to show prejudice resulting from the alleged instructional error, as the trial court had applied a damage cap that reduced the award by more than the amount of future economic damages assessed.
The City also argued that the trial court erred in allowing future economic losses to be submitted to the jury, claiming that front pay is an equitable remedy decided by the court. The Court of Appeals held that the City failed to demonstrate how this alleged error materially affected the outcome, given the application of the damage cap.
Denial of Motions for New Trial and Remittitur: The City contended that the trial court erred in denying its motions for new trial and remittitur because the jury’s award for future economic losses was not supported by the evidence. The Court of Appeals found that the City could not show prejudice from the denial of its motion for remittitur, as the amount of the award after the application of the damage cap was the same as what the City had requested in its motion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Johnson on her disability discrimination and retaliation claims.
Schrag on Law 