Danny Petifurd sued the Missouri Department of Corrections in the Circuit Court of Jackson County raising claims of disability discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of Petifurd on his retaliation claim, awarding him $695,000 in damages and $617,160 in attorneys’ fees, and the Missouri Department of Corrections appealed the decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Factual Overview
In 2013, Petifurd began working for the Missouri Department of Corrections in Cameron, Missouri, and later transferred between various facilities before being promoted to Physical Plant Supervisor I at the Kansas City Reentry Center in December 2016. While working at the Western Reception Diagnostic Correctional Center, Petifurd was instructed by supervisors to monitor a gay female employee named B.H. and write her up for policy violations daily. Petifurd later learned that B.H. had rejected a sexual advance by a male supervisor, who was using Petifurd to retaliate against her.
In February 2017, Petifurd filed a complaint alleging he was ordered to retaliate against B.H. B.H. subsequently filed a lawsuit against DOC, and Petifurd was deposed in that case in July 2018. During a February 2019 interview with DOC’s Office of Professional Standards regarding his August 2018 report about discrimination against B.H., Petifurd admitted he had not been truthful in the B.H. deposition because he did not disclose that supervisors had instructed him to write B.H. up without reason.
Petifurd later filed an internal complaint alleging that a Deputy Warden at KCRC was discriminating against and retaliating against him. During an October 1, 2019 interview about this complaint, Petifurd again admitted he had “lied for the State of Missouri” in the B.H. deposition and expressed fear about losing his job if he told the truth in an upcoming deposition in another case involving the Deputy Warden and employee L.R.
On October 10, 2019, Petifurd testified in the L.R. deposition that Deputy Warden had discriminated against L.R. because she was a woman. Fifteen days later, on October 25, 2019, Petifurd was terminated without explanation. The Director of DOC’s Division of Adult Institutions later testified that Petifurd was fired solely based on a supplemental report documenting his admission of dishonesty in the B.H. deposition.
Petifurd sued DOC in October 2021 for disability discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. At trial, he withdrew his disability and gender discrimination claims. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Petifurd on his retaliation claim, awarding substantial damages that were reduced to $695,000 due to statutory caps. The trial court also awarded attorneys’ fees of $617,160, applying a 1.5 multiplier to the lodestar amount of $411,440.
Legal Analysis
Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict: DOC argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Petifurd failed to present substantial evidence of a causal connection between his protected activity and his termination. The court applied the standard that to withstand such a motion, Petifurd must offer substantial evidence to support every fact essential to a finding of liability. Under the Missouri Human Rights Act, a retaliation claim requires proof that the plaintiff complained of discrimination, the defendant took adverse action, and a causal relationship existed between the complaint and adverse action.
The court found sufficient evidence of causation through both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence included the Director’s testimony suggesting she believed Petifurd had lied about Deputy Warden, even though Petifurd claimed he was not asked about Deputy Warden in the B.H. deposition, and Deputy Warden’s surprise that Petifurd was fired over the L.R. deposition. Circumstantial evidence included the failure of investigators to immediately report Petifurd’s admission of dishonesty despite DOC policy requiring immediate reporting, the lack of investigation into what specifically Petifurd lied about, DOC’s failure to follow usual termination procedures, and the temporal proximity between the L.R. deposition and Petifurd’s termination. The court concluded this evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of retaliation.
Attorneys’ Fees Multiplier: DOC challenged the trial court’s application of a 1.5 multiplier to the lodestar amount for attorneys’ fees, arguing the court improperly considered the contingent nature of the case both when calculating the lodestar and when determining whether to apply a multiplier. The court reviewed the award for abuse of discretion and noted that while trial courts should avoid awarding multipliers based on factors already considered in the lodestar calculation, not all three Berry factors (contingent fees, preclusion from other work, delayed work on other cases) must be present to justify a multiplier.
The court found that even if the contingent nature was considered twice, there was ample evidence supporting the second and third Berry factors that were not duplicative of the lodestar calculation. Affidavits from Petifurd’s counsel demonstrated that working on his case precluded them from accepting other, less risky employment and delayed work on other cases. The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the 1.5 multiplier.
Attorneys’ Fees on Appeal: The court granted Petifurd’s motion for attorneys’ fees on appeal, finding him to be the prevailing party since the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. However, the court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine the reasonable amount of appellate attorneys’ fees.
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of DOC’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the retaliation claim and affirmed the trial court’s application of a 1.5 multiplier to attorneys’ fees, while remanding for determination of reasonable appellate attorneys’ fees.
Schrag on Law 