District Court, W.D. Missouri — appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson
Whitmore v. O'Connor Management, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1995-10-05 · cited 5×
This case involved a former employee suing her mall management company employer for sexual harassment under Title VII and Missouri law, retaliation, negligent supervision and retention, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on an alleged sexual assault by a coworker and subsequent work assignments. The court addressed the employer's motion for summary judgment on each claim, applying standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and reviewing the timeliness of EEOC charges along with the facts of the employment relationship. The court determined that the plaintiff's tort claims for negligence and emotional distress were barred by the Missouri Workers' Compensation Law as the exclusive remedy, since the incident occurred on the employer's premises involving a coworker during the employment period. It rejected the plaintiff's arguments distinguishing the claims based on timing or clock-in status and found no genuine issues of material fact warranting trial on those counts.
labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability
McDaniel v. AlliedSignal, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1995-08-24 · cited 6×
In this case, Floyd McDaniel sued AlliedSignal under Title I of the ADA, alleging that the company failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his mental health condition so that he could retain the DOE security clearance required for his job at the Kansas City Plant, which produces nuclear weapons components under a government contract. AlliedSignal moved for summary judgment, arguing that security clearances are solely a matter between the employee and the government. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the duty of reasonable accommodation under the ADA is limited to modifications of job requirements or working conditions to enable performance of essential job functions and does not extend to curing or mitigating a disability to prevent revocation of a government-issued security clearance. The court reasoned that national security determinations are committed to the Executive Branch, that requiring the employer to intervene in clearance decisions would be beyond the ADA's scope and potentially unreasonable, and that the essential nature of the work involves classified information protected by federal regulations.
civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power
Smith v. Kitterman, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1995-08-24 · cited 7×
The case involved a former employee who sued her employer, alleging that her termination violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Missouri Human Rights Act due to her carpal tunnel syndrome and hand injuries, and that it also constituted retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment under the standard requiring no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, while drawing reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor and noting that discrimination cases often rely on inferences. The analysis centered on whether the plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA, specifically examining if her impairment substantially limited a major life activity such as working, based on her medical restrictions, job history, and ability to perform other roles after the injuries.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Vigilant Insurance v. Behrenhausen
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1995-06-13 · cited 3×
This case is a federal declaratory judgment action brought by Vigilant Insurance Company against the administrator of David Langhorn's estate, seeking a ruling that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify under a personal liability policy for claims in an underlying state-court wrongful death suit arising from a 1998 murder at KCI Airport. The policy excluded coverage for intentionally caused bodily injury, and the insurer had reserved its rights while providing a defense in the state action. Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the federal case pending final resolution of the Missouri wrongful death proceedings. The court granted the stay, reasoning that the Declaratory Judgment Act affords discretion to decline or defer jurisdiction when a parallel state action is pending, and that considerations of judicial economy, comity, and the limited ability of the insurer to control or be bound by the state litigation favored allowing the state case to proceed first.
proceduretorts & liability
Darrah v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1995-05-16 · cited 5×
The case involved a plaintiff employee suing his employer, the Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay overtime compensation for time spent on call during winter months for potential emergency roadwork. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the on-call time was not compensable working time. The reasoning centered on the fact that the on-call policy did not significantly restrict the employee's personal activities, as he was not required to remain at home or by the phone, could engage in various pursuits, and was called in only about once per week, distinguishing it from cases where on-call time was deemed compensable due to greater burdens.
labor & employment
Vanguard Packaging, Inc. v. Midland Bank
District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1994-12-29 · cited 1×
The case involved a claim by Vanguard Packaging, Inc., a Missouri corporation, that Midland Bank and its agents used economic duress to force Vanguard to purchase $1,000,000 in Midland Bancor stock it did not want, by linking the stock purchase to approval of a needed $250,000 loan extension that was rolled into a larger $1.6 million credit facility. Vanguard sought to have the transaction declared voidable and set aside. The court entered judgment for the defendant, finding that Vanguard failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was deprived of its free will or forced into the purchase. The reasoning was that Vanguard needed operating capital, Midland had no duty to extend further credit, the defendant did not create Vanguard's financial difficulties, and a superior bargaining position alone does not constitute economic duress.
business & regulatory