Jim Marcantonio sued the Board of Curators of Lincoln University in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, raising claims of hostile work environment based on race, age, and retaliation, as well as constructive discharge in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. The circuit court granted the University’s motion for directed verdict, and Marcantonio appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Factual Overview
Marcantonio began working at Lincoln University in October 2000 as Human Resources Director and later became the Affirmative Action Officer. He is Caucasian and was over sixty years old during the relevant events from 2016 to 2018. Marcantonio alleged that the University created a hostile work environment and constructively discharged him based on his race and age, and in retaliation for his complaints of discrimination.
The alleged hostile actions included removing Marcantonio’s Affirmative Action Officer responsibilities, eliminating the HR Associate position and increasing Marcantonio’s workload without additional compensation, giving him a critical performance evaluation, denying him permission to use personal leave time, and reassigning some of his higher-level duties to other employees. Marcantonio also claimed that University officials made discriminatory comments and hiring decisions based on race and age.
Marcantonio filed internal grievances and formal charges of discrimination with state and federal agencies. He ultimately resigned from the University in September 2018, claiming constructive discharge. The case proceeded to a jury trial, but after four days of testimony, the circuit court granted the University’s motion for a directed verdict on all claims.
Legal Analysis
Hostile Work Environment Standard: The court held that Marcantonio presented sufficient evidence of tangible employment actions to support a hostile work environment claim. These actions included significant changes to his job responsibilities and workload without additional compensation.
Evidentiary Rulings: The court found that the circuit court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of discriminatory statements made by the University’s Chief Diversity Officer and evidence related to the creation of a Title IX Coordinator position. This evidence was relevant to Marcantonio’s claims of discriminatory animus and pretext.
Discriminatory and Retaliatory Animus: The court concluded that Marcantonio presented substantial evidence from which a jury could find that retaliatory, racial, and age-based animus were contributing factors in creating a hostile work environment. This evidence included the timing of adverse actions following Marcantonio’s complaints, potentially pretextual explanations for employment decisions, and statements indicating bias.
Constructive Discharge: The court held that Marcantonio presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that his working conditions were objectively intolerable and that retaliatory animus was a motivating factor in the University’s actions leading to his resignation.
The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s grant of directed verdict on all of Marcantonio’s claims and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Schrag on Law 