Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-07-2022

Case Style:

State of Missouri, ex rel. Meredit Green v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, et al.

Case Number: WD84592

Judge: Karen King Mitchell

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Second Division

Plaintiff's Attorney:




Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Jefferson City Civil Rights Lawyer Directory


Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description: Jefferson City, Missouri civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant seeking a right-to-sue letter.


The Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR), its Executive Director Alisa Warren, and Mercy Health and Mercy Clinic Joplin, LLC (collectively, Mercy) appeal from summary judgment granted in favor of Meredith Green on her petition for a permanent writ of mandamus directing the MCHR to issue her a right-to-sue letter. On appeal, the MCHR raises two points, arguing that the circuit court erred in granting the writ because (1) the MCHR could not issue a right-to-sue letter until it determined whether it had jurisdiction over Green's discrimination complaint against Mercy and (2) Green failed to establish that she met the requirements for

1

issuance of a right-to-sue letter in that the parties dispute whether her complaint alleged discrimination by an "employer" covered by the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA).

Mercy raises six points on appeal. For Points I-V, Mercy claims that the court erred in granting the writ because (1) the MCHR lacked authority to issue a right-to-sue letter until it determined whether it had jurisdiction over Green's complaint; (2) Mercy is not a covered "employer" because it is not a "person" under the MHRA; (3) Mercy is not an "employer" because it does not have six or more employees; (4) Mercy was not Green's employer; and (5) Mercy is exempt from the MHRA because Mercy is owned and operated by a religious organization. For Point VI, Mercy contends that the court erred in granting summary judgment for Green because she failed to show that she requested a right-to-sue letter after her complaint had been pending with the MCHR for 180 days.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: