A Missouri state appeals court has affirmed the judgment of a trial court, which ruled that the University of Missouri at St. Louis and certain individual defendants discriminated and then retaliated against the school’s head baseball coach.
In addition to affirming the judgment and monetary award of approximately $1 million, the court also reversed the trial court’s holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees, remanding that portion of the litigation back to the trial court.
James Brady became the head baseball coach at UMSL in 1985. During his tenure at the school, his teams have consistently had a winning record and nearly 80% of his players have graduated.
In 1995, Patricia Dolan became the Athletic Director at UMSL. Vice Chancellor for Administrative Affairs, Reinhard Schuster , became responsible for the Athletic Department in 1997. A year later, the 40-year-old Brady filed a discrimination charge against UMSL with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging age discrimination and retaliation. UMSL fired Brady in June 1999, but was forced to reinstate him after Brady filed a grievance and won.
Brady’s 1998 suit was settled in December 2001. In May 2002, Brady, however, was called to a meeting with several people, including Dolan and Schuster, “where he was informed of forthcoming changes in the Athletic Department. Dolan and Schuster decided to initiate a system of tiers for the various sports within the Athletic Department. Softball, volleyball and baseball were all reduced to second tier sports,” wrote the court. “Correspondingly, each of their head coach positions was reduced to half time with no benefits and no retirement participation. Basketball and soccer were put in Tier One.
“In June 2002, UMSL reduced Brady’s job to a part-time position, cut his pay in half and eliminated his benefits. When he was reinstated after his termination in 1999, UMSL had moved Brady’s office from the second floor of the Athletics Department building to a small basement office near the swimming pool that was hot and humid. He was never moved back to the second floor near the other coaches. During this time, the baseball field on which Brady’s teams played deteriorated and was not kept in good playing condition. Because of the condition of the baseball field, UMSL’s baseball team was unable to host the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) baseball tournament in 2003 when it was the number one team in the league. Recruiting was also difficult because of the condition of the baseball field.”
Brady, who ultimately lost his insurance, was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1989. As such, noted the court, he is required to get colonoscopies and other tests on a regular basis, medical costs out of pocket that he must absorb.
The court went on to note how the athletic department made accommodations for its compliance officer, Scott Socha, who was a full-time employee. Specifically, it allowed him “to cut his hours back to accommodate caring for his three young children,” while continuing “to be classified as a full-time employee with full pay and benefits.”
Similarly, noted the court, one of the assistant baseball coaches, Deron Carter, was being paid $ 24,000, while Brady was paid less for his position as head baseball coach. “Carter had less than a half year’s experience as a student assistant coach at the college level when UMSL hired him at a higher salary than Brady’s,” wrote the court.
Brady filed a complaint under the MHRA against UMSL, Schuster and Dolan on February 26, 2004, claiming age discrimination and retaliation. The case was tried by a jury in January 2005. The jury returned a verdict for Brady and against UMSL, Schuster and Dolan. The jury awarded Brady $ 225,000 actual damages, $ 750,000 punitive damages against UMSL, $ 200,000 punitive damages against Schuster and $100,000 punitive damages against Dolan.
UMSL appealed the judgment, arguing five points on appeal:
(1) The trial court erred in submitting punitive damages against UMSL to the jury because punitive damages should not be assessed against a state constitutional entity since it effectively punishes the taxpayers who have done no wrong;
(2) The trial court erred in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury because there was insufficient evidence to support an award of punitive damages;
(3) The trial court erred in submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury and then denying UMSL’s motion for remittitur because the amount of the award exceeds fair and reasonable compensation for Brady’s alleged injury and damages;
(4) The trial court erred as a matter of law when it failed to dismiss Brady’s claims against his supervisors and allowed the jury to decide the issue of their liability under the MHRA prohibiting discrimination by an employer because they were not his employers; and
(5) The trial court erred and abused its discretion in awarding front pay to Brady because the evidence was insufficient to support such an award since Brady failed to present any evidence that his full-time employment would have continued absent the discrimination.
On cross-appeal, Brady claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion for attorneys’ fees.
The pivotal case for the court in considering the first argument was Fortner v. City of Archie, Missouri. In that case, a federal court “interpreted the MHRA to mean that punitive damages are recoverable against a municipality. 70 F. Supp. 2d 1028, 1031 (W.D. Mo. 1999). The court in Fortner stated that, “the legislature must have intended the damages provision, which includes punitive damages with no limiting language, to apply to all ’employers,’…” Citing to H.S., 967 S.W.2d at 672 and Kizer v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, 816 F. Supp. 548 (E.D. Mo. 1993), the Fortner Court held that from a reading of the plain language of the MHRA, ‘municipal corporations are to be subject to the Act in the same manner as any other employer, including the award of punitive damages.’ Thus, the trial court interpreted and applied Section 213.111 of the MHRA correctly in allowing the award of punitive damages against UMSL.”
Turning to the second argument, the appeals court wrote that “the jury had ample evidence to determine that UMSL, Schuster and Dolan discriminated against Brady because of his age and retaliated against him each time he filed a complaint.”
Interestingly, the court noted that the university “spent nearly $ 500,000 to build a new facility for the women’s softball program,” while spending nothing on the baseball facility, which could have been done to better comply with Title IX.
Another interesting passage from the court was its consideration of the baseball program’s winning record. “The evidence also showed that Brady’s baseball team had a better winning percentage than did the sports that were classified as Tier One and still had full-time coaches,” it wrote. “There was also a proportionately smaller amount of scholarship money allocated to the baseball program, despite its superior record.”
On more substantive ground, the court noted evidence “that the much younger Socha, Spink and Carter were treated better than Brady with regards to pay, hours and benefits.”
Turning to the third argument around “fair and reasonable compensation,” the court noted that “this is the third time that Brady has prevailed on an age discrimination claim against UMSL, and each time the retaliation against him escalated.
“As in (Barnett v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca France, 963 S.W.2d 639, 666 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997), it appears that the punitive damage award is the only way to deter the conduct of UMSL, Schuster and Dolan. Therefore, we do not find that the size of the punitive award is so disproportionate to the relevant factors that it reveals improper motives or a clear absence of the honest exercise of judgment. Nor do we find that the amount is manifestly unjust.”
The court also sided with the plaintiff on the fourth argument, writing that Schuster and Dolan, as Brady’s supervisors at UMSL, “fall within the definition of ‘employer’ under the MHRA (and thus) may be found individually liable for age discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA.
Similarly, it found for the plaintiff on the issue of front pay, noting that Brady’ reduction to part-time was related “to budget cuts and was not performance related.” What’s more, “the front pay award was only to be paid so long as Brady remained a part-time coach.”
James W. Brady v. The Curators of The University Of Missouri, et al.; Ct. App. Mo. East. Dist., Div. 5 ; No. ED86214, & ED86316, & ED86326, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1817; 99 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 648; 11/28/06
