ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court has partially revived a lawsuit filed by a former employee of Washington University, ruling that her claim of retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act can proceed while affirming the dismissal of her disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims.
In a decision filed Feb. 24, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed in part and reversed in part a St. Louis County Circuit Court ruling that had dismissed all claims brought by plaintiff Kathryn Torre-Stewart against Washington University-St. Louis.
The appellate court concluded that Torre-Stewart failed to plead sufficient facts to support claims of disability discrimination and a hostile work environment, but determined that she did allege enough facts for a retaliation claim to survive dismissal.
The court vacated the dismissal of that claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Torre-Stewart worked for the university beginning in 1998 before leaving four years later when she moved out of state.
She returned in 2013 and remained employed until the COVID-19 pandemic, when she was furloughed and later laid off from her position as a special projects coordinator with the university’s School of Medicine.
In October 2020, she obtained another job at the university, working in the Advancement Department as associate director of development, alumni and constituent relations in Arts and Sciences. According to the court’s opinion, Torre-Stewart later began using mobile oxygen.
In October 2022, Tom Eschen became the interim assistant vice chancellor of the department. The opinion states that in January 2023, Torre-Stewart’s former supervisor told her that Eschen had made a comment to the supervisor and the department’s chief of staff about Torre-Stewart’s oxygen backpack.
The opinion notes that Torre-Stewart did not describe the substance of the comment in her petition.
Torre-Stewart reported the remark to her new supervisor, Alison Ricketts, who became director of advancement for the department in February 2023.
About a month later, Ricketts emailed Torre-Stewart expressing concerns about alleged ongoing editing and quality control issues. The supervisor later placed Torre-Stewart on a performance improvement plan.
In April 2023, Torre-Stewart filed a complaint with the university’s human resources department regarding Eschen’s comment and the performance improvement plan issued by Ricketts. A human resources representative interviewed her in May.
Torre-Stewart later alleged that Ricketts berated her during a meeting, scrutinized her work, and used an aggressive tone in conversations with her.
Torre-Stewart eventually filed a lawsuit under the Missouri Human Rights Act alleging disability discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation.
She claimed that her disability and her complaints about discriminatory conduct were motivating factors behind the alleged hostile work environment and retaliation.
Washington University moved to dismiss the claims, arguing the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
On appeal, the court analyzed whether Torre-Stewart had sufficiently pleaded the elements required for each claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act.
Regarding disability discrimination, the appellate court determined that Torre-Stewart failed to plead facts demonstrating that she was legally disabled under the statute.
The opinion states that while Torre-Stewart alleged she used oxygen, the petition did not include facts showing that her condition constituted a qualifying disability or that the university regarded her as having such an impairment.
The only allegation that might support such a claim was Eschen’s unspecified comment about her oxygen backpack, but the court noted that the petition did not explain what was said.
The court also concluded that the allegations were insufficient to establish a hostile work environment based on disability.
The opinion states that Torre-Stewart’s petition described a single unspecified comment about the oxygen backpack and several criticisms from her supervisor, which the court found inadequate to show harassment that was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
However, the court reached a different conclusion on the retaliation claim. Under the Missouri Human Rights Act, retaliation occurs when an employer takes adverse action against an employee for opposing discriminatory practices or participating in discrimination-related proceedings.
The court found that Torre-Stewart alleged she complained to both her supervisor and the university’s human resources department about discrimination and harassment related to the oxygen backpack comment and the performance improvement plan.
She also alleged that after those complaints, she faced adverse actions, including being placed on a performance improvement plan and later terminated. ‘
The court noted that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the question is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the petition alleges enough facts to state a claim.
Accepting the allegations as true, the court held that Torre-Stewart had sufficiently pleaded that she engaged in protected activity, that the university took adverse action against her, and that her complaints were a motivating factor in those actions.
The appellate court also rejected Torre-Stewart’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing her petition with prejudice without granting leave to amend, noting that she did not propose additional facts or submit a proposed amended petition during the eight months the motion to dismiss was pending.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED113602
