Defendant's Attorney: Not Available

Description: Kansas City, Missouri employment law lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant for wrongful termination.


Meyer Electric is a commercial electrical contractor. Lisle is an electrician and an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW") union member. Lisle started working for Meyer Electric on a construction project in Chillicothe, Missouri on May 8, 2017. In April 2018, Leon Keller ("Keller"), Meyer Electric's president, advised that he wanted to layoff Lisle and another electrician. However, the foreman on the project, Tim Mehrhoff ("Mehrhoff"), objected, because he needed both electricians to complete the project.


On April 27 and May 2, 2018, Lisle asked Mehrhoff to fill out an injury report because he was suffering from carpal tunnel. In response to Lisle's second request, Mehrhoff told him, "If you ask for an injury report, they will lay you off." On May 2, 2018, Keller learned that Lisle wanted to file an injury report and a workers' compensation claim. On May 3, 2018, Keller terminated Lisle.

On May 14, 2018, Lisle filed a workers' compensation claim against Meyer Electric. Lisle then filed a lawsuit against Meyer Electric in the Circuit Court of Cole County, claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for exercising his rights under the Workers' Compensation Law in violation of section 287.780 ("Retaliation Lawsuit"). Meyer Electric was served with Lisle's petition in the Retaliation Lawsuit on July 2, 2018. The Retaliation Lawsuit remains pending and is not the subject of this appeal.

On June 19, 2019, Meyer Electric posted a job opening for an electrician to work on a construction project in Carrollton, Missouri. On June 20, 2019, Lisle expressed interest in the posted job to the IBEW Local 124 Union ("Union"). Meyer Electric's contact for the job posting was Mehrhoff. During a phone call, Mehrhoff told Lisle he "would probably hire him back." On June 20, 2019, Lisle received a referral for the position from the Union dispatching agent. Later that day, Mehrhoff texted Lisle, "[Keller] says not to hire you. Sorry, it's out of my hands." The posting remained unfilled until June 24, 2019, when Meyer Electric hired another electrician. Keller acknowledged that pursuant to an agreement with the Union, Lisle had priority over the other applicant for the posted job.

On November 19, 2019, Lisle filed a second lawsuit against Meyer Electric in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, alleging retaliation for exercising rights under the Workers' Compensation Law in violation of section 287.780. Lisle alleged that Meyer Electric failed to hire him "for a position for which he was qualified and available [and] based on the communication from Mehroff[, ] it is apparent that Plaintiff was not hired due to his assertion of his rights under the Missouri Workers' Compensation [Law]."

Meyer Electric filed a motion for summary judgment which argued a right to judgment as a matter of law because section 287.780 provides a cause of action to "any employee" who has been discharged or discriminated against by his or her employer, and Lisle was not an employee when Meyer Electric refused to hire him. On June 2, 2021, the trial court entered a judgment granting Meyer Electric's motion for summary judgment ("Judgment"). The trial court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and that Meyer Electric was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Lisle v. Meyer Elec. Co. (Mo. App. 2022)


Lisle's reliance on Robinson is not persuasive for two reasons. First, the broad purpose of Title VII is to prohibit discrimination in various forms, while in contrast, the Worker's Compensation Law is narrowly tailored to providing "compensation for injuries sustained by employees through accident arising out of and in the course of employment . . . ." Bethel v. Sunlight Janitor Serv., 551 S.W.2d 616, 618 (Mo. banc 1977). Title VII's anti-retaliation provision was construed by Robinson in a manner that is consistent with Title VII's broad anti-discrimination purpose. The anti-retaliation provision in section 287.780 should be correspondingly construed consistent with the narrow purpose of the Worker's Compensation Law to compensate for injuries arising in the course of employment.

Outcome: For the reasons explained in this Opinion, we would be inclined to affirm the trial court's Judgment. Given the general interest and importance of the question presented, however, we do not finally decide Lisle's appeal, but instead transfer his appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 83.02.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: