Woodrum vs. Missouri Department of Social Services, Case No. SD38940 (Mo. App. SD 2025)

FACTS: The claimant alleged that the Missouri Department of Social Services retaliated against him by constructively terminating his employment soon after he began seeking workers' compensation benefits after a work injury. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Social Services on the grounds that the claimant's retaliation claim is barred by sovereign immunity. The claimant appealed contending that the applicable provisions of the Missouri workers' compensation law expressly waives sovereign immunity for retaliation claims involving the state.

HOLDING: The Appellate Court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment noting that the state has expressed an affirmative intent to preserve its sovereign immunity by way of a separate and controlling statutory provision which is outside of the workers' compensation law.

Hicks vs. Commercial Metals Company, et al, Case No. WD87598 consolidated with WD87627 (Mo. App. WD 2025)

FACTS: The claimant began working for CMC as a rebar bender operator on January 17, 2017. From the time she started, one of the objectives of management was "no recordables and no lost time". The claimant's interpretation of that objective was "you don't want to get hurt or, if you do, you suck it up and keep going." She sustained an injury on January 15, 2018 and was knocked unconscious. The shop superintendent did not call an ambulance, but took her to the emergency room, and stayed with her. After leaving the ER he took the claimant to the company clinic to be drug-tested. The next day, he picked her up from home and took her back to the company clinic to be evaluated. She was to return to work with restrictions and he drove her to the plant and placed her in a darkened room for her eight-hour shift. Although the safety manager testified that the claimant was given job duties, the claimant testified that she did nothing but sit in a chair or lie on the floor in the room during her entire shift. She was again seen by a doctor and for the next three weeks sat alone in a dark room or took vacation, sick days or PTO. Other than breaks, she was not allowed to have access to her cell phone and the claimant testified that this work-around was created so that her time off would not count in the company records as "lost time and a recordable."

The shop superintendent testified that once Hicks went on full medical leave, she also went on short-term disability. However, the claimant never applied for short-term disability. She was in fact told that she could not receive both benefits. Although the claimant did not know it, the employer initiated FMLA and short-term disability on Hicks' behalf in March of 2018. The claimant continued to receive workers' compensation benefits and she received a termination letter from the employer on August 31, 2018. Before and after her termination, she continued to receive treatment and her nurse case manager presented to her appointments and provided the employer updates. The claimant was released from all work restrictions on September 13, 2018.

There was testimony that a meeting was held with corporate employees to discuss the claimant's employment and it was agreed upon that a letter would be sent to the claimant to reach back out to the employer in order to discuss her employment and she needed to respond immediately. However, the claimant testified that she did not receive any communication from the employer before her actual termination letter. There was testimony that the claimant lived less than two miles from the plant and the shop superintendent had picked her up from her home to take her to work following the accident and no one from the company tried to reach her at her home. The employer claimed that the basis for the claimant's termination was failure to communicate and provide proof of disability.

After the claimant's termination, she remained unemployed for the remainder of 2018 and 2019 and in 2020, she had multiple short-term jobs. There was testimony that her demeanor changed, she lost confidence and had become withdrawn. The claimant filed a suit alleging employment retaliation.

After a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hicks and awarded her $90,000 for back pay and $300,000 for noneconomic damages. The employer moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial or modification of the judgement, and the trial court overruled all of the motions. CMC again moved for a new trial alleging jury misconduct. The employer's attorney advised that he had learned of the alleged misconduct a few days after the conclusion of the trial but failed to explain why these issues were not addressed in the prior motion for a new trial. It was alleged that the claimant's attorney's father spoke with two jurors outside the courthouse during the trial. The employer had sworn affidavits of two of their employees confirming the same. The claimant's attorney requested video surveillance which contradicted the employees' allegations. At a hearing on a motion for sanctions, the two employees testified that they "misremembered" all of the events but neither came forward until the surveillance surfaced. The trial court sanctioned the employer, finding that they acted in bad faith and committed fraud on the court. The trial court awarded sanctions in the amount of $312,450 which equated to the full amount of Hicks' hourly attorney's fees for the trial. The employer appealed, arguing that the claimant offered no evidence that her receipt of workers' compensation benefits was a motivating factor in her termination.

HOLDING: The Court noted that in order to prevail on her retaliation claim, she needed to prove that she was employed by the employer before the injury, she exercised her rights by filing a claim for workers' compensation, the employer terminated the claimant and there was a causal relationship between the claimant filing her claim and termination. The employer only argued that the claimant did not meet the fourth element, that she proved a causal relationship between her workers' compensation claim and her termination. The Court noted that the claimant proved a causal relationship by showing that her workers' compensation claim was a motivating factor in her discharge and it actually played a role in the discharge or termination and had a determinative influence on the discharge or termination. Essentially, the employer's evidence focused on the claimant's alleged lack of communication about her health status and timing for returning to work, but the claimant presented evidence that the employer was aware of the same as the nurse case manager was sending updates to the employer. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the claimant, there was sufficient evidence to submit the claimant's retaliatory discharge claim to the jury. Also, the Appellate Court found no abuse of discretion in the amount of sanctions imposed. The court also affirmed the jury's back pay award and non-economic damages award, noting that they could not say the jury's verdict was excessive nor that the trial court abused its discretion.