Bryant Holmes sued the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, raising claims of discrimination based on race, sex, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Holmes on the hostile work environment claim, awarding $600,000 in compensatory damages, and the DOC appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
Bryant Holmes began working for the DOC in 1993 as a correctional officer and was eventually promoted to deputy warden at the Kansas City Reentry Center (KCRC) in 2015. In this role, he reported directly to the warden, referred to as L.A. (“Warden”). Shortly after their reporting relationship began, Warden instructed Holmes that he was required to say “good morning” to her, regardless of when he arrived or what he was doing. Warden explained this requirement by stating, “I didn’t sleep with you last night. I need a good morning.”
Warden’s behavior towards Holmes included preventing female staff from meeting or interacting with him in her absence, redirecting the reporting structure of other staff members, and interfering with tasks Holmes assigned to them. Holmes complained to Warden’s supervisor and requested an investigation into her conduct. Following a mediation in October 2015, Warden continued her behavior, including requiring Holmes to say “good morning” and excluding him from meetings with other staff members.
In 2016, Holmes received a negative performance log note and was placed on a performance improvement plan. In 2017, he was transferred to an assistant warden position at a different facility, where he was assigned to a cubicle instead of an office and reported to the deputy warden. Holmes filed a petition against the DOC in January 2018, alleging discrimination claims based on race, sex, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
At trial, Holmes and other staff members testified about Warden’s offensive and differential treatment of Holmes based on his male gender. The jury found in favor of Holmes on the hostile work environment claim, awarding $600,000 in compensatory damages. The circuit court subsequently awarded Holmes $601,785 in attorney’s fees and $29,632.85 in costs and expenses.
Legal Analysis
Evidence of Harassment Based on Sex: The DOC argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that Holmes was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on his sex. The court disagreed, finding that Holmes presented probative evidence that his male gender was a contributing factor in the harassment from Warden. The court noted that Warden’s demand for a “good morning” because she did not sleep with Holmes exhibited conduct of a sexual nature. Additionally, Warden’s actions prohibiting female employees from interacting with Holmes expressed a desire to be exclusively acknowledged by him and isolate him based on his sex.
Evidence of Severe or Pervasive Conduct Affecting Employment: The DOC contended that Holmes failed to present evidence of conduct objectively severe or pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment or Holmes’s work performance. The court rejected this argument, finding that Holmes presented ample evidence for the jury to consider. The court noted that Holmes testified about a two-year period during which Warden required him to say “good morning” and prevented him from working with other female employees. Multiple witnesses testified that Warden’s continuing offensive statements and conduct affected their ability to work together as members of the executive staff.
Attorney’s Fees on Appeal: The court granted Holmes’s motion for attorney’s fees on appeal, citing the fee-shifting provision in the Missouri Human Rights Act. The court remanded the case to the circuit court for determination of a reasonable award of attorney’s fees for the appeal.
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Holmes on his hostile work environment claim and remanded the case for determination of attorney’s fees on appeal.
Schrag on Law 