Robert Horton sued St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis raising claims of race and age discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). After the trial court dismissed his petition without prejudice, Horton appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
Factual Overview
Horton, an African-American male over forty years old, worked as a procurement director at SLPS until his termination in May 2022. In March 2023, he filed a petition against SLPS alleging race and age discrimination under the MHRA, along with claims of retaliation and negligent infliction of emotional distress. SLPS moved to dismiss in April 2023, arguing Horton’s petition failed to state a claim. The trial court granted the motion on October 4, 2023, dismissing the petition without prejudice. On November 1, 2023, Horton filed a motion to vacate and for leave to amend, which the trial court denied on December 14, 2023.
Legal Analysis
Rule 55.22(a) Written Instrument Issue: On appeal, Horton argued the trial court erred in dismissing his discrimination claims based on Rule 55.22(a), contending that a charge of discrimination is not a “written instrument” requiring attachment to the petition. The appellate court declined to address this argument because Horton never presented it to the trial court in his motion to vacate, noting that parties cannot raise new arguments on appeal that weren’t first presented to the trial court.
Leave to Amend Petition: Regarding Horton’s request to amend his petition, the court analyzed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. The court considered four factors: hardship to the moving party, reasons for omitting matters from the original pleading, timeliness of the request, and potential injustice to the opposing party. Although the court recognized the hardship to Horton due to the MHRA’s statute of limitations, it found that Horton had ample opportunity (nearly six months) to amend his petition before dismissal and failed to provide any explanation for not including the charge of discrimination initially.
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying Horton’s motion to vacate and for leave to amend his petition.
Schrag on Law 