Applying McDonnell Douglas, Missouri Court of Appeals Upholds Summary Judgment Denying MHRA Claims of Discrimination and Retaliation.

In March, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Western District of Missouri upheld the decision of a Jackson County, Missouri Circuit Court, granting summary judgment to the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission finding it did not discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff Perry Allen.

Allen was terminated from his position with MoDOT for sending inappropriate texts on his work-issued phone. After filing a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights alleging discrimination based on race, sex, age, retaliation, and hostile work environment, Allen filed suit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County against the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, which superintends MoDOT. The trial court granted summary judgment in the Commission’s favor, and Allen appealed.

The Court of Appeals applied the familiar burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under this framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action, and if the employer can do so, the burden then shifts back to the employee to produce evidence supporting an inference that the employer’s rationale was mere pretext for the discrimination.

Background:

Allen began working for the Missouri Department of Transportation in 1991. On March 15, 2015, as part of an investigation into another employee’s alleged misconduct, the Director of MoDOT’s audits and investigations division, identified as M.V., interviewed Allen. Allen alleged that M.V. created a hostile work environment for Allen, although Allen did not recall M.V. saying anything derogatory about Allen’s sex, race, or age.

Allen further alleged that he and D.H., the human resources manager for the Kansas City district at the time, had three or four negative interactions over the nine years the two worked together. Specifically, in March 2020, Allen and D.H. met in D.H.’s office to discuss an employee matter where D.H. “shouted over” Allen during a phone conversation, then later told Allen that he had embarrassed her in front of central office human resources staff. According to Allen, D.H. was extremely irate, agitated, yelled at Allen, paced back-and-fourth, slapped the back of Allen’s chair and told Allen that he “wouldn’t be questioning any of this if [D.H.] wasn’t black or female.”

In September 2021, Allen emailed C.R., the district engineer for MoDOT’s Kansas City district, describing the March 2020 incident with D.H. Allen alleged the 2020 incident made him feel “beat down” and that he stopped bringing ideas or challenging D.H. because he feared D.H.’s reaction.

In October 2021, C.R. made the decision to terminate Allen after M.V. informed him that audits and investigations had discovered that Allen had sent inappropriate text messages on his work-issued cellphone. C.R., as the district engineer, was the only individual with authority to terminate employees in MoDOT’s Kansas City district. In an affidavit, C.R. stated that he did not consult with M.V. regarding the decision to terminate Allen, and D.H. was not involved in the decision. Allen did not allege that C.R. discriminated or retaliated against him in C.R.’s personal capacity.

The Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission filed a motion for summary judgment with the trial court, arguing that Allen failed to make a prime facie case for discrimination because Allen admitted that C.R., the sole decision maker for the termination decision, did not act discriminately or retaliatory in making that decision. Allen responded claiming that the Commission as an entity had discriminated against him regardless of who signed the termination letter. Allen also claimed that C.R. had consulted with D.H. and M.V., who both acted with a discriminatory or retaliatory motive, and that his termination was sufficient to establish a hostile work environment.

The trial court granted summary judgment finding Allen had failed to meet his burden to show a genuine issue to the material facts that would support his claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Allen appealed.

The McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework:

Under the Missouri Human Rights Act, RSMo. Section 213.101(3), "If an employer ina case brought under this chapter files a motion pursuant to [R]ule 74.04 of the Missouri rules of civil procedure, the court shall consider the burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green …” Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. However, if the employer offers a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for the adverse action, the burden then shifts back to the employee to produce evidence supporting an inference that the employer’s rationale was mere pretext for the discrimination.

Allen claimed the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because C.R. was potentially not the sole decision maker. Allen cited a MoDOT personnel policy requiring that supervisors “consult with the local human resources office for a consistency review/recommendation prior to administering any discipline greater than a verbal warning.” The Court of Appeals, reviewing the summary judgment record de novo, found that this was insufficient to overcome C.R.’s affidavit statement that he had made the decision to terminate Allen after M.V. provided him with information, and did not consult with M.V. or D.H. in  making that decision.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that Allen had failed to establish sufficient evidence of a hostile environment based on the summary judgment record because the alleged discriminatory incidents were mere isolated incidents, and a reasonable person could not conclude that his workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.”

Takeaway:

In order to succeed on a claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act, an employee must demonstrate a causal link between the alleged discrimination and the tangible employment action. Alleging a final termination decision maker and others consulted, without more, is insufficient. And when an employer provides evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination, it is then incumbent upon the plaintiff to provide evidence that the proffered explanation was pretextual. Further, isolated incidents of alleged discrimination occurring years apart, may be insufficient to establish the existence of a hostile work environment.