Legal and law concept statue of Lady Justice with scales of justice

Lady Justice

ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District has upheld a circuit court ruling that dismissed a former bartender’s claims of sex discrimination and retaliation against the Norman Ridgon Post No. 5986 for Veterans of Foreign Wars, finding the organization is exempt from the Missouri Human Rights Act as a bona fide private membership club.

In a decision issued as a matter of first impression, the appellate court affirmed that the VFW post is not considered an employer under the MHRA and therefore cannot be sued under the state’s anti-discrimination statute, the Aug. 26 opinion states.

Judges Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, Gary M. Gaertner Jr. and James M. Dowd all concurred in the decision.

Rayne Littlefield, who worked as a bartender in the VFW Club Room from March 2020 to May 2021, alleged that members of the post made unwanted sexual advances toward her, including inappropriate comments, touching her hip and thigh, and using profanity. 

In 2020, she filed a written report with VFW about some of the alleged conduct, and in April 2021, she claimed another member made an inappropriate remark. 

A few days later, she was suspended, and on May 11, 2021, the same day she submitted a second written complaint, her employment was terminated.

Littlefield filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights in August 2021, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation, and received a right-to-sue letter in March 2023. She then sued the VFW post. 

The post responded by asserting that it is a bona fide private membership club, exempt from taxation and moved for summary judgment before discovery began. After discovery, it filed a second motion with further detail about its history, membership process and purpose, arguing that its status shielded it from MHRA liability.

The appellate court examined whether the VFW qualified as a bona fide private membership club under Missouri law, a question not previously addressed by state courts. 

The court noted that VFW membership is limited to individuals who honorably served in the U.S. military in a foreign war or similar conflict, reflecting a highly selective process. Members vote for officers to manage the post’s affairs, and the organization owns its facilities. 

Littlefield argued that the post was not private because it hosted multiple public events each week, including Bingo nights, Wednesday breakfasts, weekly Farmers Markets and daily “Happy Hour Twice a Day,” all of which were advertised on its website. 

She claimed that the Club Room was open to the public whenever it was operating. The VFW disputed this, stating that its rules require nonmembers to be accompanied by a member and to sign in and out and said the public events were intended to benefit the community, support veterans and maintain the facility.

The appeals court found that four of six factors — including the selectivity of membership, member control, organizational history and purpose — strongly supported the VFW’s status as a bona fide private membership club. While the use of facilities by nonmembers and public advertising weighed against it, the court said these factors were not dispositive and that private clubs may host some public activities without losing their exemption if their structure remains private and private sociability is a core purpose.

Citing a similar case involving the Disabled American Veterans organization in Kentucky, the court concluded that the VFW’s selective membership criteria, governance structure, and veteran-focused mission demonstrated that it operates as a private association. 

“VFW exhibits private sociability through the control of its members to govern its affairs, and it gives aid exclusively to members and their families for veteran-specific issues,” the court wrote.

As a result, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment to the VFW, holding that the organization is not an employer under the MHRA and is exempt from liability for Littlefield’s claims.

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District case number: ED113095

More News