Mary McClendon sued the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) in the Circuit Court of Jackson County raising claims of aiding/abetting and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The trial court granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and McClendon appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Factual Overview
McClendon originally filed a charge of discrimination against her former employer with the Commission in February 2021, alleging disability discrimination. In September 2021, after 225 days had passed, McClendon requested a right to sue notice, which the Commission is required to issue if its investigation is ongoing after 180 days. Despite this request, the Commission repeatedly delayed issuing the notice.
After multiple follow-ups and conflicting statements from the Commission about the status of her case, McClendon filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Jackson County Circuit Court in May 2022. The Commission was served with a preliminary writ on May 13, 2022. On June 14, 2022, the court issued a permanent writ requiring the Commission to immediately issue a right to sue notice, yet the Commission still did not comply. After McClendon filed a motion for a show cause order in July 2022, the Commission finally issued the notice – over 500 days after McClendon’s original filing.
McClendon then filed a new charge against the Commission itself, alleging it had engaged in aiding/abetting and retaliation. After receiving a right to sue notice on this second charge, McClendon filed the lawsuit underlying this appeal. The trial court dismissed both counts, finding McClendon failed to state a claim for aiding/abetting under section 213.070.1(1) and for retaliation under section 213.070.1(2).
Legal Analysis
Aiding/Abetting Claim
The court examined whether McClendon sufficiently pleaded facts meeting the elements of an aiding/abetting claim under section 213.070.1(1). Citing Matthews v. Harley-Davidson, the court noted that to sustain such a claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant provided “substantial assistance or encouragement” to another party that committed a discriminatory act.
The court found that the Commission’s actions, as alleged, failed to constitute substantial encouragement or assistance. Although McClendon alleged the Commission aided her former employer through intentional delay, there were no allegations that the Commission had any involvement with the employer’s original discriminatory act. The Commission’s role was limited to processing McClendon’s charge after the alleged discrimination had already occurred. The court held that, as a matter of law, the Commission’s post-hoc actions could not constitute aiding/abetting of the original discriminatory act.
Retaliation Claim
The court determined that McClendon’s retaliation claim under section 213.070.1(2) also failed. To establish retaliation, a plaintiff must show (1) participation in protected activity, (2) adverse action, and (3) a causal relationship between the two. The court noted that “an action is not adverse simply because it is upsetting or disappointing,” and that retaliation must have an “adverse impact on the plaintiff before it becomes actionable.”
The court found it significant that despite the delay, the Commission ultimately provided McClendon with a right to sue notice, preserving her ability to pursue remedies against her former employer. There were no allegations that the Commission’s actions actually extinguished McClendon’s right to pursue her discrimination claims. The court also noted that the harms asserted by McClendon were related to the dilatory effects on her suit against her former employer rather than new, independent harms directly caused by the Commission.
The court held that as a matter of law, McClendon failed to state a claim for retaliation under these circumstances.
Conclusion
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing both of McClendon’s claims against the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.
