Danielle Deloatch 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). The trial court dismissed her petition without prejudice, and Deloatch appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals after the trial court denied her motion to vacate and amend.
Factual Overview
Deloatch, an African-American female over forty years old, worked as an assistant principal at an SLPS school until her termination in April 2022. In April 2023, she filed a petition against SLPS alleging race and age discrimination under the MHRA. SLPS moved to dismiss in May 2023, arguing Deloatch’s petition failed to state a claim. After the motion was heard in June 2023, the trial court dismissed the petition without prejudice in October 2023. Deloatch then filed a motion to vacate and amend, which was denied in December 2023. Although the dismissal was without prejudice, the MHRA’s ninety-day statute of limitations effectively rendered it a dismissal with prejudice since Deloatch could no longer refile within the statutory period.
Legal Analysis
Rule 55.22(a) Application: Deloatch argued on appeal that the trial court erred in dismissing her discrimination claims under 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 issue, finding that Deloatch never raised this argument before the trial court, either in response to the motion to dismiss or in her motion to vacate.
Motion to Amend: Regarding the denial of leave to amend, the court examined four factors: hardship to the moving party, reasons for omission, timeliness, and potential injustice to the opposing party. While acknowledging the hardship to Deloatch due to the statute of limitations bar, the court found she failed to properly plead these factors to the trial court. Unlike the pro se prisoner plaintiff in Costa v. Allen, Deloatch had ample time (nearly five months) to respond to the motion to dismiss or amend her petition before dismissal. Her failure to explain the original omission of the discrimination charge and the delayed amendment request supported the trial court’s denial of leave to amend.
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying Deloatch’s motion to vacate and for leave to amend her petition.
Schrag on Law 