KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District has upheld a Caldwell County jury verdict finding Commercial Metals Company and CMC Steel Fabricators liable for retaliating against an employee who filed a workers’ compensation claim, affirming both the retaliation judgment and a substantial sanctions award against the companies.
The appeal stemmed from a three-day jury trial held from May 30 through June 1, 2024, in which jurors found that CMC wrongfully terminated Kathleen Hicks in violation of Missouri law protecting employees who file workers’ compensation claims.
The jury awarded Hicks $90,000 in back pay and $300,000 in non-economic damages for emotional distress.
Following the verdict, the trial court sanctioned CMC for attempting to mislead the court with false allegations of jury misconduct, ordering the company to pay an additional $312,450 in attorney’s fees to Hicks’s legal team.
CMC appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying its motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Hicks allegedly failed to prove her workers’ compensation claim was a motivating factor in her termination.
The company also challenged the sanctions amount, calling it excessive. The appellate panel, which included Presiding Judge Janet Sutton, Judge Gary D. Witt and Judge W. Douglas Thomson, disagreed, affirming the trial court in full.
Hicks began working for CMC’s Polo, Mo., plant in January 2017 as one of its first employees.
Her job involved bending and bundling heavy rebar, and she often worked extensive overtime.
In January 2018, she suffered a serious head and shoulder injury when struck by a piece of equipment during testing. She lost consciousness and reported ongoing headaches, dizziness, and pain afterward.
Despite those symptoms, CMC returned her to work almost immediately with severe restrictions, confining her to a darkened room where, according to her testimony, she spent her shifts sitting or lying on the floor.
Medical professionals eventually diagnosed Hicks with post-concussive syndrome, and she began receiving treatment under CMC’s workers’ compensation coverage. Throughout her recovery, a nurse case manager hired by the company’s insurer attended Hicks’s medical appointments and reported updates to CMC.
However, in August 2018, while Hicks remained under medical care, CMC terminated her employment. The company claimed it fired Hicks for failing to communicate about her medical condition or provide proof of continued disability. Hicks testified she never received any prior communication before the termination letter arrived.
At trial, Hicks and her family described how the termination devastated her emotionally, saying she became withdrawn and lost confidence. The jury found CMC retaliated against Hicks for filing a workers’ compensation claim.
After the verdict, CMC sought a new trial, alleging that Hicks’s attorney’s father had improperly spoken with jurors outside the courthouse.
Two CMC employees, who had testified during the trial, signed sworn affidavits claiming to have witnessed the interaction. When courthouse surveillance footage was reviewed, however, it disproved their statements entirely.
The witnesses later admitted they had “misremembered” the events, but only after the video evidence surfaced.
The trial court concluded the affidavits were “complete fabrications meant to mislead” the court and found that CMC had “committed a fraud on the Court.”
It sanctioned the company under its inherent authority, ordering payment of $312,450, which was an amount equal to Hicks’ full attorney’s fees for trial.
On appeal, CMC argued there was insufficient evidence to support the retaliation verdict because Hicks failed to show her workers’ compensation claim was the motivating factor in her termination.
The appellate court rejected that claim, finding Hicks presented substantial evidence that CMC knew her medical status through regular reports but still fired her while she was recovering from a workplace injury.
The court noted that CMC’s own human resources representative testified Hicks likely would have been terminated regardless of her communication efforts. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the appellate judges held the issue of motive was properly decided by the jury.
CMC also argued the sanctions were excessive and not narrowly tied to expenses caused by its bad-faith conduct. The appellate panel disagreed, emphasizing the trial court’s broad discretion to sanction parties who attempt to deceive the court.
The opinion cited the trial court’s finding that CMC’s post-trial allegations were filed “in bad faith” without any investigation and that the company’s witnesses submitted false affidavits.
The judges concluded the $312,450 award was within the trial court’s discretion and consistent with Missouri precedent allowing courts to compensate a prevailing party for expenses resulting from an opponent’s bad-faith actions.
The appellate court’s ruling leaves intact the total judgment of more than $700,000 against Commercial Metals Company and CMC Steel Fabricators, reaffirming the jury’s finding of retaliatory discharge and the trial court’s determination that the company engaged in misconduct during post-trial proceedings.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD87598
