Plaintiff Ann Marie Schreiber sued defendants Hart Nelson, Marie Peters, and St. Louis Community College (STLCC) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims under Missouri’s public employee whistleblower statute, breach of contract, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. Defendants Nelson and Peters moved to dismiss Count I (the whistleblower claim) under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Schreiber worked as a coordinator for disability support services at STLCC from 2005 until her termination in 2022. Beginning in December 2021, she reported to her supervisor Peters that STLCC was not complying with the ADA in its services to students. Peters directed Schreiber to stop making such reports and to cease giving students access to disability service programming information. In February 2022, after Schreiber submitted a report about the lack of disability services, Peters criticized and admonished her. A month later, Schreiber was disciplined for reporting concerns about disabled students’ exclusion from programming to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Shortly after, Nelson, STLCC’s Chief Operating Officer, informed Schreiber that her program would be defunded effective June 2022. When STLCC offered Schreiber an employment contract for fiscal year 2023, which she accepted, the contract was revoked and she was forcibly removed from campus.
Legal Analysis
Missouri Whistleblower Statute: Individual Liability
The court analyzed whether Missouri’s public employee whistleblower statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 105.055, permits claims against individual supervisors. The statute allows public employees to bring civil actions “against the public employer” for damages. The court found the statutory definition of “public employer” unambiguously refers to state agencies and instrumentalities, not individuals. The court rejected Schreiber’s arguments for an expansive interpretation, noting that while individuals may commit prohibited acts, liability attaches only to the employer.
Statutory Interpretation: The court applied Missouri’s rules of statutory construction, which require giving effect to the plain language of unambiguous statutes. Because the statute clearly defines “public employer” to include only governmental entities, the court determined that individual supervisors cannot be held liable. The court distinguished cases interpreting prior versions of the statute that did not include the current language limiting claims to those “against the public employer.”
The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I as to defendants Nelson and Peters, while allowing the whistleblower claim to proceed against STLCC.
Schrag on Law 