Plaintiff Michael Eivins sued the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, raising claims of age discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the DOC. Eivins appeals the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Factual Overview
Michael Eivins, a Union President and Voluntary Services Assistant at the DOC, alleged that DOC employees targeted him because of disclosures and representations related to unsafe work conditions. In June 2018, Dale Garrett told Eivins he did not want him to be part of voluntary services with the DOC and allegedly defamed him. Two months later, Eivins received a proposal to terminate his employment, which he claimed was jointly drafted by numerous people and caused him to seek medical attention.
Eivins also alleged that Patricia Hall launched an informal fact-finding investigation in April 2017, Patrick Shea targeted his employment by initiating Administrative Investigation Boards in October 2017 and 2019, Robert Ritter issued proposals to terminate his employment in August and September 2018, and Lisa Edwards made a false claim that he committed a privacy violation.
Legal Analysis
Law of the Case Doctrine
Eivins argued that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 74.04(d) motion because it ignored the law of the case set forth in Eivins I, which required the court to find the DOC had admitted certain facts. The court disagreed, stating that the reversal on appeal of the grant of the DOC’s motion for summary judgment in Eivins I rendered the previous determination null and void. The court held that the law of the case doctrine was not applicable.
Failure to Conduct Rule 74.04(d) Analysis
Eivins claimed the trial court erred in denying his Rule 74.04(d) motion because it failed to conduct a Rule 74.04(d) analysis and/or improperly held the DOC’s admissions did not apply to the facts of the case. The court found that Eivins failed to preserve the first claim of error for appellate review as he did not raise the specific argument in his motion for a new trial or present it to the trial court. Regarding the second claim, the court held that when the grant of the DOC’s motion for summary judgment was reversed in Eivins I, it was rendered null and void, and no facts deemed admitted in the summary judgment proceeding continued to be admitted.
Equal Protection
Eivins argued that the trial court denied him equal protection of the law by concluding that the DOC’s admissions were not “to the facts of the case itself” and refusing to bind the DOC to its admissions. The court found that there was no difference in treatment between Eivins and the DOC, as Eivins ultimately received his day in court due to the reversal of the summary judgment in Eivins I.
Conclusion
The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the DOC on all claims raised by Eivins.
Schrag on Law 