 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Craig v. Missouri Department of Health11/13/2001
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Byron L. Kinder
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
Smart and Howard, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
Dorinda Craig appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County dismissing on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 55.27(b), her employment discrimination claims, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), against the respondents: the Missouri Department of Health (MDH); and Daryl Roberts, Bureau Chief of the Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology; Pamela Rice Walker, Division Director; and Colleen Kivlahan, Director, both individually and in their official capacities with the MDH.
The appellant raises four points on appeal. In Points I and II, she claims that the circuit court erred in dismissing her claims under the MHRA against the respondents as being time barred, pursuant to section 213.111.1, because the court misapplied the law by not applying: (1) the "litigation exception," tolling the statute of limitations; or (2) the "relation back doctrine," of Rule 55.33(c), relating back the filing of her MHRA claim to the filing of her ADA claim, which was timely. In Point III, she claims that the circuit court erred in dismissing her ADA claims against the respondents as being barred by sovereign immunity because in doing so, it relied on the Eighth Circuit's holding in Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 1999), in that the court, not being bound by the Eighth Circuit's decision, should have rejected it as being the minority view among the circuits that have addressed this issue. In Point IV, she claims that the circuit court erred in overruling her motion for new trial or to set aside the judgment and her motion for leave to file a third amended petition because in dismissing her cause of action on the pleadings, the circuit court did not rely on the pleadings actually in the record.
We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
Facts
The appellant was employed by the MDH from August 1992 through September 1996 as a secretary. In September 1993, she was working in the Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, under the supervision of Roberts. At that time, she had been diagnosed as suffering from depression, personality disorder and severe migraines, causing her to be hospitalized in December 1993, and again in January 1994, and causing her to miss work.
After returning to work in February 1994, in order to accommodate her claimed disability, the appellant asked Roberts for a change in her work schedule, which was denied. As a result, she filed an internal complaint in August 1994 with Kivlahan, alleging that Roberts was discriminating against her because of her disability. After filing the complaint, the appellant contends that she was subjected to repeated harassment from Roberts and co-workers in retaliation for her making the complaint and received poor performance reviews. The appellant was off work for an extended period of time in August 1996, due to her claimed disability. She was terminated by the MDH on September 24, 1996, based upon her failure to return to work and her failure to comply with MDH policy requiring a written request for a leave of absence, accompanied by a doctor's diagnosis, prognosis and expected date of return to work.
The appellant filed an employment discrimination complaint on the basis of disability with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC issued the appellant a "right to sue" letter in September 1997. Within 90 days of receipt of the letter, she fil
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|