R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV Sch. Dist.

1

R.M.A., Appellant, v. BLUE SPRINGS R-IV SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.

No. WD85778

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, First Division

June 4, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Cory L. Atkins, Judge

Before Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

OPINION

Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

R.M.A appeals the judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court on his claim for relief under the Missouri Human Rights Act. In three points on appeal, R.M.A. argues the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in granting a new trial. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Facts

In October 2014, R.M.A. filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights ("the MCHR") alleging sex discrimination by the Blue Springs R-IV School District ("School District"). The MCHR issued a right to sue letter in July 2015. R.M.A. filed his petition for damages in October 2015.

The petition alleged the following: R.M.A. is a female to male transgender teenager who was born as a female child and transitioned to living as a male in 2009 while attending fourth grade in the Blue Springs R-IV School District. R.M.A.'s name was changed to a name traditionally given to males in 2010. R.M.A.'s birth certificate was amended in December 2014 to reflect his present legal name and amend his sex designation from female to male.

R.M.A and his mother expressed an interest in R.M.A. having access to the boys' locker room and restrooms while he attended eighth grade in the Blue Springs R-IV School District. School District refused to give that access. R.M.A. and his mother again requested that R.M.A. be given access to the boys' restrooms and lockers rooms when he began attending school at the Freshman Center in Blue Springs R-IV School District at the beginning of the 2014-2015 academic year. School District again denied that access even though R.M.A. had been issued an amended birth certificate recognizing his sex as male.

At the time R.M.A. filed his petition, he attended high school in the Blue Springs R-IV School District.^[1] School District continued to deny R.M.A. access to the boys' restrooms and locker rooms while he was in high school. The petition alleged that other boys attending have regular, unrestricted access to the boys' locker rooms and restrooms in schools operated by School District.

School District has offered varying explanations for denying R.M.A access to the same accommodations as the other boys. School District employees suggested that R.M.A. had been excluded from the boys' restrooms and locker rooms because of School District's belief that he had female genitalia. School District did not actually determine the nature of R.M.A.'s genitalia, however, and does not speculate, inspect, or otherwise inquire as to the genitalia of other male students. On the other hand, a member of School District's Board, and the principal at the time of R.M.A.'s high school attendance, testified that School District classified students for bathroom and locker room access based on the sex designation in the birth certificates which students' families provided to School District.

The petition alleged that School District discriminated and continued to discriminate against R.M.A. based on his sex. R.M.A. was deeply embarrassed and distressed by his exclusion from the boys' restrooms and locker rooms. School District had singled out R.M.A. for disparate treatment from other boys based on his sex.

R.M.A. participated in boys' physical education in middle school with the acquiescence of School District. R.M.A. participated in physical education in a home school placement during the spring semester of the 2014-2015 school year at his request while attending ninth grade because School District would not permit him to use the boys' locker room and restrooms, and R.M.A. wished to avoid the embarrassment and stigma of having to dress out for gym class in a separate room from the other boys.

R.M.A. participated in boys' athletics in the 2013-2014 school year, on the eighth grade boys' football team and eighth grade boys' track team while in middle school. During the eighth-grade football and track seasons, R.M.A. dressed out for practice and games in a separate, single-person, unisex bathroom outside the boys' locker room because School District refused to give him access to the boys' locker rooms. Unlike the locker room to which other boys had access, the single-person bathroom which R.M.A. was required to use did not contain lockers or shower facilities. R.M.A. chose not to participate in fall sports for the 2014-2015 school year in ninth grade due to being denied access to the boys' locker room and restrooms.

R.M.A.'s petition alleged he had been subjected to different requirements for accessing the services of the school because of his sex. Specifically, he had been required to use separate bathrooms from other boys on a daily basis and had been denied access to the boys' locker room if he wished to participate in boys' physical education or athletic activities. R.M.A. had received different and inferior access to public facilities because of his sex. As a result, R.M.A. felt embarrassed, singled out, and inferior to other boys. He continued to refrain from full participation in boys' physical education and athletics because School District had singled him out for disparate accommodations. School District had caused R.M.A. continued emotional distress. School District's conduct had caused R.M.A. loss of enjoyment of the facilities to which he was entitled to access. The petition alleged one count for sex discrimination pursuant to section 213.010.^[2] R.M.A. requested a jury trial.

In November 2015, School District filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because the school board and School District are not "persons" within the scope of section 213.010(14) and 213.065.2 and because the Missouri Human Rights Act does not extend its protections to claims based on gender identity. In June 2016, the trial court dismissed R.M.A.'s petition with prejudice. In February 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed. It found that R.M.A.'s "petition alleges facts that (if taken as true, as required by the standard of review) establish the elements of a claim under section 213.065." R.M.A. v. Blue Springs R-IV School Dist., 568 S.W.3d 420, 424 (Mo. banc 2019). The Supreme Court vacated the judgment dismissing the petition with prejudice and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Id. at 430.

The case proceeded to jury trial in December 2021. School District moved for a directed verdict at the close of R.M.A.'s evidence and again at the close of all evidence. The trial court denied the requests. On December 10, 2021, the jury returned a verdict in R.M.A.'s favor. It awarded him compensatory damages in the amount of $175,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $4,000,000. The trial court gave R.M.A. until January 14, 2022 to submit briefing on equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

On January 12, 2022, School District filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") or, in the alternative, motion for new trial. School District listed multiple points of alleged error. School District stated that these errors, together, accumulated to support R.M.A.'s legally improper claim that he was discriminated against based on his transgender status rather than being discriminated against based on his male status.

On January 14, 2022, R.M.A. filed a motion for attorneys' fees, costs, equitable relief, and interest with incorporated suggestions in support. On January 28, 2022, R.M.A. filed his suggestions in opposition to School District's motion for JNOV or, in the alternative, new trial. On February 3, 2022, School District filed its suggestions in opposition to R.M.A.'s motion for attorneys' fees. On February 11, 2022, R.M.A. filed his reply suggestions in support of his motion for attorneys' fees. On February 14, 2022, School District filed its reply suggestions in support of its motion for JNOV or, in the alternative, new trial. On May 26, 2022, R.M.A. filed a supplement to his motion for attorneys' fees.

On May 27, 2022, the trial court entered an order granting in part and denying in part R.M.A.'s motion for attorneys' fees. It awarded $558,313.72 in fees and costs. The court awarded post-judgment interest at the rate of 5.75 percent. That same date, the trial court entered final judgment:

Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $175,000.00 in compensatory damages, and $4,000,000.00 in punitive damages. Plaintiff is further awarded fees and costs in the amount of $558,313.72. The total judgment entered is $4,733,313.72.

The Judgment shall bear interest at 5.75 percent, pursuant to Section 408.040, from this date forward until satisfied by the Defendant.

Also on May 27, 2022, the trial court entered an amended judgment granting the motion for JNOV or, in the alternative, new trial. The trial court stated that the Missouri Supreme Court instructed that the verdict director in R.M.A.'s case must read:

Your verdict must be for plaintiff [R.M.A.] if you believe:

First, defendants [School District and School Board] denied plaintiff full and equal use and enjoyment of the males' restroom and locker room facilities at defendants' school, and

Second, plaintiff's male sex was a contributing factor in such denial, and

Third, as a direct result of such conduct, plaintiff sustained damage.

The court's amended judgment stated:

In part, the second element of the verdict director required Plaintiff prove his male sex was a contributing factor in Def

...