Case Name: Kirk LAWLESS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. FLORISSANT POLICE DEPARTMENT, City of Florissant, Timothy Lowery, William Karabas, Thomas Schneider, John Foster and Chris Roth, Defendants/Respondents.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-05-22
Citations: 556 S.W.3d 62
Docket Number: ED 105853
Parties: Kirk LAWLESS, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
FLORISSANT POLICE DEPARTMENT, City of Florissant, Timothy Lowery, William Karabas, Thomas Schneider, John Foster and Chris Roth, Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 556
Pages: 62–62

Head Matter:
Kirk LAWLESS, Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
FLORISSANT POLICE DEPARTMENT, City of Florissant, Timothy Lowery, William Karabas, Thomas Schneider, John Foster and Chris Roth, Defendants/Respondents.
ED 105853
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Filed: May 22, 2018
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 27, 2018
Application for Transfer Denied September 25, 2018
Matthew J. Ghio, 3115 S. Grand, Suite 100, St. Louis, MO 63118, For Plaintiff/Appellant.
Jason S. Retter, 2000 S. Hanley Road, St. Louis, MO 63144, For Defendants/Respondents.
Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kirk Lawless (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of Appellant's employer, the Florissant Police Department and the City of Florissant, Timothy Lowery, William Karabas, Thomas Schneider, John Foster, and Chris Roth, on Appellant's first amended petition alleging retaliation and discrimination; and the trial court's order denying Appellant's Motion for New Trial and request for an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the admission of evidence, Marmaduke v. CBL & Associates Management, Inc., 521 S.W.3d 257, 266 (Mo.App. E.D. 2017), or in the denial of Appellant's Motion for New Trial and request for evidentiary hearing, Gallagher v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 238 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment and order pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).