Saint Louis University
JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District has dismissed an appeal filed by a former tenured associate professor of physics at St. Louis University (SLU), who sought a writ of mandamus against the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and its executive director after his request for a religious exemption to SLU's COVID-19 vaccination policy was denied.
The appellate court ruled that because the judgment from the Cole County Circuit Court was not final, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Dr. Dmitry Solenov, a Christian who stated he had not received any vaccinations since his conversion to Christianity, submitted a request for religious exemption in 2021 when SLU required COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of continued employment.
His request was denied on Aug. 10, 2021, with SLU informing him that no appeal was available and that his employment would be terminated unless he complied by Nov. 13, 2021.
Subsequently, Solenov filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and cross-filed with the MCHR, alleging discrimination based on national origin, religion, retaliation, sex and other grounds.
The MCHR terminated administrative proceedings on Oct. 5, 2021, citing a lack of jurisdiction because SLU is owned or operated by a religious or sectarian group and is therefore exempt from the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA).
Solenov then petitioned the Cole County Circuit Court for a writ of mandamus, asserting that SLU did not qualify for the religious exemption and that MCHR was obligated to investigate his complaint and issue a right-to-sue letter.
He argued that without such a letter, he could not pursue civil damages under the MHRA, violating his due process rights.
The Circuit Court issued a preliminary order but, after extensive legal arguments and interventions, ultimately granted SLU's motion for judgment on the pleadings on May 15, 2024.
SLU argued that Solenov's petition was moot because any potential claim under the MHRA was barred by the statute of limitations, which required claims to be filed within two years of the discriminatory act.
SLU maintained that the two-year period began on Aug. 10, 2021, when Solenov was informed of the vaccine mandate and potential termination.
Solenov countered that his official termination occurred in January 2022 and that he had filed an MHRA civil suit in January 2024, which he believed was within the statutory window. However, this fact was not included in his original petition for mandamus relief.
SLU also contended that the MCHR was correct in declining jurisdiction and that even if a right-to-sue letter were issued, it would serve no practical purpose because the timeframe for any civil action had expired.
The Circuit Court agreed, concluding that Solenov lacked a present legal right entitling him to mandamus relief and that the matter was moot.
Solenov appealed, naming SLU as the respondent, and the MCHR and its executive director later intervened in the appeal, as the relief sought was ultimately against them.
The appellate court, however, focused on the issue of the finality of the Circuit Court's judgment.
Citing Missouri law, the court noted that only final judgments resolving all claims by and against all parties are appealable. Since the Circuit Court's judgment addressed only the claims against SLU and did not resolve Solenov’s claims against the MCHR and its executive director, the judgment was not final.
Although both Solenov and the MCHR contended that the judgment effectively disposed of all claims by rendering the request for a right-to-sue letter moot, the appellate court rejected this argument. The court clarified that while some exceptions exist to the rule requiring all issues and parties to be addressed for a judgment to be final, those exceptions apply to unresolved issues within a case, not to unresolved claims against unnamed or unaddressed parties.
The appellate court noted that had the MCHR and its executive director joined in SLU's motion for judgment on the pleadings or sought a ruling on their own motion to dismiss, the situation might have been different. Because the Circuit Court had not made any determination on the claims against the MCHR, the appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to proceed.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed. All judges concurred in the decision.
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District case number: WD87263
