A Missouri appeals court has reversed a trial court, finding that it issued a contradictory ruling when it dismissed the claim of employment discrimination brought by the former equipment manager of the St. Louis Rams against the club, while at the same time compelling arbitration.
The plaintiff in the case was long-time Rams equipment manager Todd Hewitt. Hewitt, 55, began working for the Los Angeles Rams at age 11, helping his father with the team’s equipment. Officially, he joined the staff in 1978 and succeeded his father as equipment manager in 1986. He was named NFL Equipment Manager of the Year in 1997.
Hewitt was fired in 2011, two years after Steve Spagnuolo was named head coach of the Rams. Hewitt alleged that prior to firing him, Spagnuolo “told him he was too old for his job.”
When he was fired, Hewitt was just 10 months shy of eligibility for extended health benefits for himself and his family, and would have become eligible for early retirement when he was fired in January 2011.
Hewitt sued in 2012, alleging a single claim of age discrimination in the termination of his employment in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Shortly thereafter, the Rams filed a motion to compel arbitration of Hewitt’s claim and asked that his claim be dismissed or, alternatively, stayed pending arbitration. On January 8, 2013, the trial court entered an Order and Judgment granting the Rams motion to compel arbitration and staying the proceedings in its court pending further proceedings in arbitration. The court also indicated that “if either party wishes this court to grant alternative relief (dismissing this matter to permit an appeal), that party shall request a rehearing before the court on this issue within 15 days, with notice and an opportunity to be heard to the other side.”
On January 17, 2013, Hewitt filed a motion to amend the trial court’s order and judgment, asking the court to dismiss without prejudice rather than stay his MHRA claim “in order to allow an immediate appeal” to “obtain a definitive appellate court ruling with regard to the validity of the arbitration agreement.” Second, Hewitt asked the court to “temporarily stay the arbitration proceedings by enjoining (the Rams) from proceeding with them pending the final resolution of the appellate process.”
In response, the trial court granted in part and denied in part Hewitt’s motion. The court dismissed his claim to permit him to pursue appellate review of its decision to compel arbitration, but denied his request to stay the arbitration proceedings it had ordered. The court noted, “It is the Court’s intention to permit the plaintiff to have the opportunity of pursuing appellate review, but it is also the Court’s intention that the plaintiff shall participate in arbitration pursuant to the terms of his contract without further delay and that the Court’s order, compelling arbitration, shall remain in full force and effect.”
Hewitt appealed.
The appeals court described the trial court’s ruling as “internally inconsistent … because it both dismisses the appellant’s claim in the trial court while ordering it to arbitration. The trial court’s January 8, 2013 Order and Judgment stayed Appellant’s action and ordered the parties to arbitrate his claim. … The trial court’s purported dismissal of Appellant’s claim is at odds with its concurrent order compelling it to arbitration and refusing to stay the arbitration.
“The trial court cannot simultaneously assert jurisdiction and control over a claim by ordering it to arbitration, and at the same time relinquish jurisdiction and control over that claim by dismissing it. These actions are internally inconsistent and the trial court’s refusal to stay the ordered arbitration proceedings upon its simultaneous dismissal of the claim compounds the inconsistency. A judgment that is inconsistent or contradictory cannot stand. In re N.H., 155 S.W.3d 820, 824 (Mo.App. E.D. 2005).”
The appropriate course, according to the appeals court is that “when arbitration is compelled, the trial court should stay the proceedings in its own forum, not dismiss them. Rather than dismissal, the proper course of action for the trial court, upon finding an agreement to arbitrate, is to stay the action pending arbitration. Mueller v. Hopkins & Howard, P.C., 5 S.W.3d 182, 186 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999).
“Appellant may raise his issues in an extraordinary writ proceeding or in a proper appeal after arbitration. Burris v. American Heritage Homes, LLC, 197 S.W.3d 613, 615 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006); Deiab v. Shaw, 138 S.W.3d 741, 743 (Mo.App. E.D. 2003). The results of the arbitration could also render appellant’s issues moot. Burris, 197 S.W.3d at 615; Deiab, 138 S.W.3d at 743.”
Todd Hewitt v. St. Louis Rams Partnership et al.; Ct. App. Mo., East. Dist., Div. Two; No. ED99592, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1095; 9/24/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff/appellant) John D. Lynn, St. Louis, MO. (for defendants/respondents) Bradley A. Winters, Clayton, MO.
