Plaintiff Savana Atkisson sued defendant Missouri Department of Corrections in the Circuit Court of Cole County raising claims of sex discrimination and hostile work environment under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on both claims, and Atkisson appealed only the hostile work environment claim to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Factual Overview
Savana Atkisson worked as a female corrections officer at Jefferson City Correctional Center, a maximum-security prison housing approximately 1,950 male felony offenders. As part of her duties, Atkisson conducted security checks by walking through housing unit wings and looking into cells at random times twice every hour. The housing units were shaped like an X with four wings extending from a central command center called the “Bubble.”
In February 2017, JCCC revised its Gender Announcement Policy to comply with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Under the revised policy, whenever a female corrections officer entered a housing unit wing, an announcement had to be made over the intercom stating “Female in the Housing Unit, this shift,” and signs had to be posted indicating that an opposite gender staff member was present in the unit.
Almost immediately after implementation of this revised policy, Atkisson began experiencing daily catcalling and yelling from offenders telling her to “show them her boobs” every time she entered a housing unit wing. Atkisson was unable to identify which specific offenders were responsible for the inappropriate remarks made behind cell doors. She received support from supervisors and other officers to help identify the offenders responsible, but acknowledged there was “nothing else that could be done” and that she did not know if there was anything the DOC could have done differently other than “not institute this cross-gender announcement to begin with.” Atkisson ultimately resigned from the DOC in March 2020.
On May 2, 2017, Atkisson filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and subsequently filed a petition for damages and injunctive relief on June 29, 2017. The petition alleged sex discrimination and hostile work environment claims, seeking compensatory and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief prohibiting the requirement that female corrections officers announce their presence when entering housing unit wings. The DOC filed a motion for summary judgment on both claims, arguing multiple grounds including federal preemption under PREA, that the claims were disparate impact claims not cognizable under the MHRA, and that Atkisson could not establish the elements of her hostile work environment claim.
Legal Analysis
Appellate Procedural Requirements:
The court addressed whether Atkisson properly preserved her claims for appellate review. The trial court had granted summary judgment on multiple independent grounds, including a finding that there was no evidence the DOC failed to take appropriate action in response to harassment, which relates to the fifth element of a hostile work environment claim. Atkisson raised four points on appeal, but none challenged this specific finding by the trial court. The court explained that failure to challenge an independent basis for summary judgment is fatal to an appeal, as the judgment can be affirmed on any legally correct ground.
Scope of Points Relied On:
Atkisson argued that the court should overlook her “technical” failure to address the fifth element finding because she mentioned it briefly in her argument section when discussing other points. The court rejected this argument, explaining that this was not merely a technical deficiency in drafting a point relied on, but rather a complete failure to raise the issue for appellate review. The court distinguished cases where deficient points relied on can be clarified by argument sections, noting that here there was no corresponding point relied on to clarify. The court emphasized that arguments in brief sections that exceed the scope of the points relied on preserve nothing for appellate review.
Elements of Hostile Work Environment Claim:
The court outlined the five elements required to establish a hostile work environment claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) subjection to unwelcome harassment; (3) sex as a contributing factor in the harassment; (4) harassment affecting a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) employer knowledge of harassment and failure to take proper remedial action. The court noted that the fifth element applies when the alleged harasser is a non-supervisory employee or third party, as was the case here with DOC inmates being the alleged harassers.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding that Atkisson failed to challenge an independent basis for summary judgment regarding the DOC’s response to the alleged harassment, making her appeal unsuccessful regardless of the merits of her other arguments.
Schrag on Law 