D.W., a minor child, sued Hogan Preparatory Academy, Inc. and Douglas Bliss, a former teacher, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, raising claims of sex discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) and battery. After a jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of D.W., Hogan and Bliss appealed the decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Factual Overview
In March 2018, Douglas Bliss was a sixth-grade social studies teacher at Hogan Middle School, and D.W. was a student in his class. According to D.W., after school on March 12, 2018, she went to Bliss’s classroom for help with classwork. During the fifteen minutes she was in his classroom, Bliss allegedly told her to close the door and, when she approached his desk with a question, he rubbed her right upper thigh and suggested that it could be their “little secret.”
D.W. reported the incident, and the following day, her mother and her mother’s boyfriend attacked Bliss in his classroom. D.W. was suspended for ten days for “putting her hands” on Bliss during the attack. Both the Children’s Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services and the Kansas City Police Department investigated the incident but closed their files without making any findings.
At trial, D.W. presented evidence that Bliss had previously pushed another sixth-grade girl who refused to leave his classroom. Though Hogan investigated and concluded Bliss had engaged in inappropriate physical contact with that student, he was not disciplined. D.W. also presented evidence that Bliss wore tight-fitting clothing, flexed his muscles, experienced erections in class, and massaged students’ shoulders, calves, and thighs during class.
Hogan presented video showing D.W. entering and exiting Bliss’s classroom after school for only 38 seconds. D.W. claimed she returned to his classroom later that same afternoon when the incident occurred, but Hogan’s former principal testified this 38-second video was the only one showing D.W. near Bliss’s classroom that day.
The jury found Hogan liable for sex discrimination under the MHRA and awarded D.W. $350,000 in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages. The jury found Bliss liable for battery and awarded D.W. $250,000 in compensatory damages but did not find him liable for punitive damages.
Legal Analysis
Preservation of Error on Sex Discrimination Claim:
The court determined that Hogan failed to preserve for appellate review its argument that D.W. failed to make a submissible case for sex discrimination. The court noted that neither of Hogan’s motions for directed verdict raised the error alleged—that D.W. failed to show she was discriminated against based on her sex. Instead, Hogan’s motions argued only that D.W. failed to show constructive knowledge on the part of Hogan. Since a sufficient motion for directed verdict is required to preserve a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for appeal, this issue was not preserved.
Submissibility of Punitive Damages:
The court rejected Hogan’s argument that D.W. failed to make a submissible case for punitive damages. The court found sufficient evidence to support the submission of punitive damages to the jury, including: (1) Hogan’s failure to discipline Bliss after he inappropriately pushed another female student two months earlier; (2) Hogan’s suspension of D.W. for ten days without interviewing her first; (3) potential destruction of video evidence that might have corroborated D.W.’s account; and (4) Hogan’s failure to disclose to investigating agencies its prior determination that Bliss had engaged in inappropriate physical contact with another female student. The court noted that a jury could have inferred that Hogan engaged in outrageous conduct either through intentional wrongful acts or through the reckless disregard of D.W.’s rights.
Admissibility of Evidence:
Evidence of Erections:
The court found that evidence of Bliss experiencing erections during class was both logically and legally relevant. It provided the jury with a sense of the atmosphere in Bliss’s classroom and, coupled with evidence of tight clothing, muscle flexing, and massaging students, would help explain why D.W. would interpret the March 12 incident as sexual in nature. The court noted that Bliss himself testified that displaying an erection in class would constitute a violation of Hogan’s policy against sexual harassment.
Evidence of Prior Pushing Incident:
The court similarly found that testimony that Bliss pushed another sixth-grade girl was both logically and legally relevant. In both instances, Bliss engaged in inappropriate physical contact with a female sixth-grade student. The first incident put Hogan on notice that Bliss could potentially resort to inappropriate physical contact with another female student. The fact that Bliss continued to deny inappropriate touching, despite Hogan’s investigation results, went to his credibility.
Instruction on Future Damages:
The court rejected Hogan and Bliss’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support jury instructions on future damages. D.W. testified that four years after the incident, she experienced a mental breakdown at school while watching a video about sexual assault and harassment, requiring additional mental health treatment. A licensed psychologist testified that, given D.W.’s age and the nature of the incident, the trauma would persist in D.W.’s brain and future experiences could retrigger the emotional response. Additionally, the verdict was not itemized, so the record did not indicate whether the jury actually awarded any future damages, making prejudice difficult to establish.
Cumulative Error:
The court rejected the argument that the cumulative effect of the trial court’s alleged errors deprived Hogan and Bliss of a fair trial, noting that “any number of non-errors cannot add up to an error.”
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court on all grounds.
Schrag on Law 