KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District has upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City in a discrimination lawsuit brought by a former employee.
Dorothy Mukanjiri filed the lawsuit in June 2022 in Jackson County Circuit Court, alleging Blue KC violated the Missouri Human Rights Act by engaging in unlawful discrimination based on her race and sex, as well as retaliating against her, according to the July 8 opinion filed in the Missouri Western District Court of Appeals.
After a seven-day jury trial in August 2023, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Blue KC on all three counts. The trial court entered judgment accordingly on Sept. 18, 2023.
Following the verdict, Mukanjiri filed a motion for a new trial on Oct. 17, 2023, arguing that the trial court had erred in not allowing the jury to take notes during the trial. Blue KC filed its own post-trial motion the following day, seeking attorney’s fees on the grounds that Mukanjiri’s claims lacked foundation.
Both motions were denied by the trial court on Nov. 15, 2023.
Mukanjiri appealed the judgment, and Blue KC cross-appealed the denial of attorney fees. The appellate court consolidated both appeals.
In reviewing Mukanjiri’s claim that the trial court violated Rule 69.03 by not allowing juror note-taking, the appellate court noted that Rule 69.03 indeed states that a court “shall permit jurors to take notes” when requested by any party.
However, the court noted that the record must show the request was actually made and ruled upon by the trial court in order for an appellate court to consider it.
Citing precedent, the court explained that a party must preserve alleged errors by making specific objections during trial, giving the trial court the opportunity to address them.
In this case, the appellate court found no indication in the record that Mukanjiri ever requested juror note-taking during trial proceedings or that the trial court ruled on such a request.
Although Mukanjiri referenced the issue in her post-trial motion and pointed to pre-trial jury instructions that included an optional note-taking paragraph, the appellate court held that these measures did not satisfy the requirements for preserving the issue.
As a result, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment against Mukanjiri and denied her request for a new trial.
In its cross-appeal, Blue KC argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion for attorney’s fees, claiming that Mukanjiri’s case was baseless.
However, the appellate court dismissed Blue KC’s appeal on jurisdictional grounds, determining that the trial court’s order denying attorney’s fees did not constitute a final, appealable judgment under Missouri law.
The court noted that motions for attorney’s fees under Rule 74.16 are considered “independent actions” and must be resolved by a judgment that meets formal requirements: it must be written, signed by the judge, and denominated as a “judgment.” The trial court’s November 15, 2023 order denying Blue KC’s motion did not meet those criteria.
Because Blue KC’s filing did not result in a final judgment as required by law, its appeal was dismissed.
Judge Thomas N. Chapman delivered the opinion for the court, with all judges concurring.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD86748, WD86754
