Case Title: Ellen Wallingsford, Appellant v. City of Maplewood, Respondent

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC89862

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 2009-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
 
 
 
 
Ellen Wallingsford,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Appellant, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
vs. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. SC89862 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
City of Maplewood,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
Respondent.  
 
) 
 
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County 
Honorable James R. Hartenbach, Judge 
 
 
Ellen Wallingsford appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the city of 
Maplewood on her claims of gender discrimination and hostile work environment.  The 
dispositive issue is whether Wallingsford’s claims are barred by section 213.075.1, 
RSMo 2000.1  That section, a part of the Missouri Human Rights Act (act), requires an 
individual alleging unlawful discrimination to file a discrimination complaint with the 
Missouri Human Rights Commission (commission) within “one hundred eighty days of 
the alleged act of discrimination.”  Wallingsford filed her discrimination complaint on 
January 20, 2005, alleging that she was constructively discharged on August 30, 2004, 
                                                 
1 All statutory citations are to RSMo 2000. 
 
and that her discharge was a direct result of ongoing gender discrimination by 
Maplewood.2  Because Wallingsford’s complaint was filed 144 days after the alleged 
constructive discharge, it was timely.  Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the 
case is remanded. 
FACTS
 
Wallingsford served as a Maplewood police officer from August 26, 1986, until 
her resignation August 29, 2004.  Wallingsford filed a charge of discrimination with the 
commission on January 20, 2005.  The commission issued a right to sue letter in January 
2006.  Wallingsford filed suit on March 29, 2006, alleging gender discrimination, hostile 
work environment, retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The 
discriminatory actions alleged included abusive behavior by male colleagues, baseless 
internal investigations, failures to promote and “sham” evaluations.  In her discrimination 
complaint as well as in her petition, Wallingsford specifically alleged that the 
discrimination “continued throughout her employment through and including her 
constructive discharge on August 30, 2004.”  
 
On May 9, 2006, Maplewood filed a motion to dismiss the petition.  The trial court 
treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and entered summary 
judgment in favor of Maplewood on the ground that Wallingsford’s suit was untimely 
because she failed to allege an act of discrimination that occurred within 180 days of 
filing her discrimination complaint with the commission.  Wallingsford appeals.  
                                                 
2 Although Wallingsford’s petition references the date of her resignation as August 30, 2004, her 
letter of resignation was tendered to Maplewood August 29, 2004.   
 
 
2
ANALYSIS
 
Appellate review of summary judgment is de novo.   ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. 
v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993).  Summary 
judgment is appropriate where the moving party has demonstrated, on the basis of facts 
as to which there is no genuine dispute, a right to judgment as a matter of law.  Id.  A 
“genuine issue” that will prevent summary judgment exists where the record shows two 
plausible but contradictory accounts of the essential facts.  Id. at 382.  The record is 
reviewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered.  Id. 
at 376.  The moving party bears the burden of establishing a legal right to judgment and 
the absence of any genuine issue of material fact required to support the claimed right to 
judgment.  Id. at 376-81. 
 
The act prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual “with 
respect to his [or her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment 
because of such individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, or 
disability ….”  Section 213.055.1(1)(a).   An individual alleging unlawful employment 
discrimination must file a complaint with the commission within 180 days of the alleged 
act of discrimination.  Section 213.075.1.  The filing requirements are subject to the 
continuing violation exception, which permits a plaintiff to recover for acts of 
discrimination occurring prior to the 180-day filing period if the discrimination is a series 
of interrelated events.  Pollock v. Wetterau Food Distribution Group, 11 S.W.3d 754, 762 
(Mo. App. 1999); Rowe v. Hussman Corporation, 381 F.3d 775, 782 (8th Cir. 2004).   
Wallingsford’s claim is timely, therefore, if she alleged that Maplewood engaged in 
 
3
unlawful discrimination at some point after July 24, 2004, which is the beginning of the 
180-day time period preceding her January 20, 2005, discrimination complaint. 
A. Constructive Discharge 
 
Wallingsford alleged that Maplewood’s discriminatory actions “continued 
throughout her employment through and including her constructive discharge on August 
30, 2004.”  Missouri law recognizes that a claim for constructive discharge constitutes 
actionable discrimination under the act.  Pollock, 11 S.W.3d at 764; see also Barekman v. 
City of Republic, 232 S.W.3d 675, 682 n.5 (Mo. App. 2007)(noting that allegations of a 
discriminatory work environment in a case under the act could constitute a claim of 
constructive discharge); Gamber v. Missouri Dept. of Health and Senior Services, 225 
S.W. 3d 470, 477 (Mo. App. 2007)(assuming the possibility of a constructive discharge 
claim under the act).  Constructive discharge resulting from unlawful discrimination, 
therefore, can constitute an “alleged act of discrimination” that is sufficient to satisfy the 
180-day filing period imposed by section 213.075.1. 
Constructive discharge occurs when an employer deliberately renders an 
employee’s working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced to quit his or 
her job.  Gamber, 225 S.W.3d at 477 (quoting Bell v. Dynamite Foods, 969 S.W.2d 847, 
851 (Mo. App. 1998)).  “To effect a constructive discharge, the working conditions must 
be such that a reasonable person would find them intolerable.”  Id.  A claim of 
constructive discharge requires more than a single incident; rather, the claim requires 
proof of a continuous pattern of discriminatory treatment   Id.  Claims of constructive 
discharge often include evidence of subtle discrimination in the form of social coercion, 
 
4
demotions or changes in job responsibilities.  As a result, constructive discharge is a fact-
intensive inquiry.  Levendos v. Stern Entm't, Inc., 860 F.2d 1227, 1230 (3d Cir. 1988).   
 
In this case, Wallingsford alleged that she constructively was discharged on 
August 30, 2004, and that her discharge was a direct result of an ongoing pattern of 
gender discrimination by Maplewood.  Wallingsford filed her complaint alleging an 
unlawful, discriminatory constructive discharge within 180 days of that discharge.  The 
parties dispute the facts regarding whether Wallingsford constructively was discharged 
on August 29, 2004, and, as explained below, the court did not require the parties to 
develop a record of uncontroverted material facts in accordance with Rule 74.04.  The 
continued dispute as to the material facts of Wallinsgford’s allegation of constructive 
discharge requires a finding that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment in 
favor of Maplewood on the basis that Wallingsford’s claims are untimely. 
B. Summary judgment procedure
The decision to enter summary judgment in favor of Maplewood stems, in part, 
from the trial court’s decision not to require compliance with the summary judgment 
procedures set forth in Rule 74.04.  Rule 74.04(c) requires a movant seeking summary 
judgment to “summarily state the legal basis for the motion” and attach “a statement of 
uncontroverted material facts … to the motion.” Additionally, the movant “shall file a 
separate legal memorandum explaining why summary judgment should be granted.”  Id.   
The movant also must attach a copy of all discovery, exhibits or affidavits on which the 
motion relies.  Similarly, the adverse party must admit or deny each of the movant’s 
factual allegations with specific reference to discovery, exhibits or affidavits.   
 
5
The movant is entitled to judgment only if he or she can establish that there are no 
genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law.  If a party seeks to expand the grounds for a summary judgment motion or enlarge 
the record after the motion and response has been filed, allowing such an expansion is 
prejudicial.  Cross v. Drury Inns, Inc., 32 S.W.3d 632, 637 (Mo. App. 2000).   Allowing 
the movant to raise new factual issues, grounds or arguments within summary judgment 
proceedings, without offering the other party the opportunity to respond, violates Rule 
74.04 and results in prejudice for the opposing party.  Id.  If a party fails to comply with 
Rule 74.04(c) and such failure is prejudicial, then reversal is required.  Morley v. Henske, 
704 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. App. 1986).   
In this case, the trial court did not require the parties to comply with the clear and 
specific provisions of Rule 74.04.  Maplewood filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the 
only act of discrimination alleged by Wallingsford was her claim that she improperly was 
suspended in December 2002 and that this act fell outside the 180-day filing period.  
Maplewood also asserted that the 180-day filing period began on July 15, 2004, when 
Maplewood informed Wallingsford that her discharge appeared inevitable due to the 
results of an internal investigation.   
In response, Wallingsford asserted that the last alleged act of discrimination was 
her constructive discharge on August 29, 2004.  Maplewood filed a reply memorandum 
asserting that Wallingsford failed to identify any act of discrimination that occurred 
within the 180-day filing period.  Wallingsford sought leave to file a supplemental 
affidavit asserting additional discriminatory actions allegedly undertaken by Maplewood 
 
6
within the 180-day filing period.  The trial court denied leave to file the supplemental 
affidavit and entered summary judgment in favor of Maplewood.   
The trial court did not require Maplewood to submit a statement of uncontroverted 
material facts with specific references to discovery, exhibits or affidavits and a separate 
legal memorandum in support of the motion.  Additionally, Maplewood’s reply 
memorandum asserted, for the first time, the specific argument that Wallingsford failed to 
allege sufficient evidence that she continued to experience discrimination through the 
final day of her employment.  By denying Wallingsford the opportunity to file a 
supplemental affidavit detailing her working conditions during the final two months of 
her employment, the trial court deprived her of the opportunity to respond to 
Maplewood’s factual assertions.  The failure to comply with the Rule 74.04 procedures 
permitted the entry of summary judgment without narrowing the case to the 
uncontroverted material facts regarding Wallingsford’s claim of constructive discharge.  
The failure to comply with Rule 74.04 is especially problematic because the crux of 
Wallingsford’s claim is that continued employment was intolerable due to ongoing 
discrimination.  Resolving that claim requires a fact-intensive inquiry that is not readily 
susceptible to summary judgment, particularly when the requirements of Rule 74.04 are 
not followed.  
 
7
CONCLUSION
 
Wallingsford’s petition presents a genuine issue of material fact regarding her 
alleged constructive discharge.  The failure to require compliance with Rule 74.04 
compromised the ability of the parties to provide the court with the uncontroverted 
material facts necessary to determine whether to enter summary judgment in this case.  
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
______________________________________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Richard B. Teitelman, Judge  
 
All concur. 
 
 
  
 
 
8