Case Summary

Leesa Wiseman sued the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, raising claims of discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Court of Appeals of Missouri is considering whether the Department’s appeal was timely filed.

Statement of Undisputed Facts

Wiseman filed a petition against the DOC on October 23, 2018, asserting eight claims under the MHRA related to her former employment: race discrimination and hostile work environment; sex discrimination and hostile work environment; disability discrimination and hostile work environment; retaliation; and wrongful termination and constructive discharge based on race, sex, disability, and retaliation. Wiseman’s petition included a request for reasonable attorneys’ fees as authorized by the MHRA.

A nine-day jury trial began on July 12, 2022. The trial court granted the DOC’s motion for directed verdict as to the claim of wrongful termination and constructive discharge based on disability but denied the motion as to all other claims. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Wiseman on her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment and awarded her compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, past economic losses excluding back pay, future economic losses, and non-economic losses.

The trial court entered judgment on July 26, 2022, awarding Wiseman damages in accordance with the jury’s verdict. However, the judgment was silent regarding Wiseman’s request for attorneys’ fees. The judgment stated that “the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine such further damages as may be allowed by law.”

On August 25, 2022, the DOC filed a post-trial motion for new trial, remittitur, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On September 9, 2022, Wiseman filed a motion to amend the judgment to include an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and post-judgment interest.

The trial court entered an amended judgment on April 21, 2023, partially denying the DOC’s motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict and partially granting its motion for remittitur. On the same day, the court entered a separate judgment granting Wiseman’s motion for attorneys’ fees. The court sua sponte further amended its judgment on May 3, 2023, to clarify its ruling on remittitur.

The DOC renewed its motion for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict on June 2, 2023. The trial court denied this renewed motion on July 6, 2023. The DOC filed its notice of appeal on July 14, 2023.

Legal Analysis

Timeliness of Appeal:

The court addressed whether the DOC’s appeal was timely filed. The key issue was whether the July 26, 2022 judgment was a final judgment despite not addressing Wiseman’s request for attorneys’ fees.

The court found that Rule 74.16, which became effective July 1, 2022, was controlling. This rule provides that a claim for attorney fees is an independent action and an unresolved claim for attorney fees no longer arrests the finality of a judgment on the merits. The rule requires that a claim for attorney fees must be made by motion filed under Rule 74.16.

The court rejected the DOC’s argument that Rule 74.16 was inapplicable because Wiseman had already requested attorneys’ fees in her petition. The court found Rule 74.16 to be procedural rather than substantive, and thus applicable to pending proceedings.

Effect of Rule 74.16:

The court determined that Wiseman’s motion for attorneys’ fees, despite being titled as a “Motion to Amend Judgment,” was properly treated as a motion under Rule 74.16, beginning an independent action.

Because the July 26, 2022 judgment was final and the DOC timely filed an authorized post-trial motion on August 25, 2022, the trial court had jurisdiction until the earlier of ninety days from the filing date or the date of ruling. Since the trial court did not rule on the motion until April 21, 2023, well beyond the ninety-day period, the motion was denied by operation of law and the judgment became final on November 23, 2022.

Under Rule 81.04(a), the DOC was required to file its notice of appeal by December 5, 2022. Since the DOC did not file until July 14, 2023, the appeal was untimely.

Attorneys’ Fees on Appeal:

The court granted Wiseman’s motion for attorneys’ fees on appeal. Since Wiseman was the prevailing party in securing dismissal of the appeal, she was entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees under Section 213.111.2. The court directed the trial court on remand to determine and award reasonable attorneys’ fees for the appeal.

The court dismissed the DOC’s appeal as untimely, reinstated the July 26, 2022 judgment, vacated subsequent amended judgments and orders, and remanded for a determination of Wiseman’s attorneys’ fees for the appeal.