Shiffman v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Club

687 S.W.3d 443

Steve SHIFFMAN, Appellant,

v.KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, Respondent.

WD 86311

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: March 26, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Honorable James Dale Youngs, Judge

David Lunceford, Lees Summit, MO counsel for Appellant.

Christina Nielsen, Arlington, VA cocounsel for Appellant.

Sara Welch, Kansas City, MO counsel for Respondent.

Erin Naeger, Kansas City, MO co-counsel for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, Karen King Mitchell, Judge, and Janet Sutton, Judge

Janet Sutton, Judge

Steve Shiffman (Shiffman) appeals the Jackson County Circuit Court’s (trial court) entry of summary judgment in favor of Kansas City Royals Baseball Club, LLC (the Royals) on his petition claiming age and religious discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), § 213.010, et seq.,¹ as well as hostile work environment. On appeal, Shiffman argues the trial court improperly (1) denied his motion to strike inadmissible "hearsay" affidavits, (2) granted summary judgment on his claim of religious discrimination, (3) granted summary judgment on his claim of retaliation, and (4) granted summary judgment on his claim of hostile work environment. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Procedural and Factual Background

The Underlying Termination

The following facts are taken from the Royals’ statement of undisputed material facts and from Shiffman’s additional statement of uncontroverted facts contained in his suggestions in opposition to summary judgment.

Shiffman worked for the Royals from October 2010 to March 2020, and, at the time of his termination, Shiffman was employed as the Senior Director of Ticket Sales and Services at Kauffman Stadium. In this role, Shiffman managed sales and service of season tickets, groups, premium tickets, suites, and individual game sales. Shiffman’s direct supervisor was the Vice President of Marketing and Business Development.

Meanwhile, Shiffman’s junior employee, the Director of Sales and Services, reported directly to Shiffman. Shiffman’s junior employee directly supervised three managers who were responsible for ticket sales, season tickets, and group sales. The junior employee managed the sales process and staff while Shiffman oversaw the Ticket Sales and Services Department, including budgeting, goals, commissioning plans, and brokering relationships and season ticket plans.

By 2018, however, Shiffman and the junior employee’s roles changed. The junior employee, instead, oversaw day-to-day employee management and became the primary contact in the Ticket Sales and Services Department. Shiffman remained engaged in the budget and managed relationships with ticket brokers. Further, Shiffman’s supervisor decided he would take over Shiffman’s broker deals because it would be easier and more efficient, and Shiffman would continue to work on season ticket sales, suites, groups, and other areas. By 2018, no component of Shiffman’s compensation was tied to broker deals or ticket sales on the secondary market.

In November 2019, the Royals were sold to a group of investors. The new owners brought in a new Senior Vice President and Chief Revenue and Innovation Officer (CRO) and a new Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer (COO). The new CRO oversaw revenue, creative content, marketing, and community impact teams and the new COO oversaw business operations and administration.

In early 2020, the new leadership team, including the new CRO and COO, began meeting with departments to conduct an organization assessment. The CRO and COO focused on the duplication of effort in the Ticket Sales and Services Department.

Through gathering information and meeting with employees, the CRO and COO believed that Shiffman had delegated most of his duties to his junior employee and that his junior employee had become the primary contact in the Ticket Sales and Services Department. The CRO and COO further determined that Shiffman’s supervisor was primarily managing the broker deals, and Shiffman’s junior employee was performing most of the day-to-day responsibilities of the Ticket Sales and Service Department.

Therefore, in late February 2020, the CRO and COO determined that the Senior Director role was no longer needed and decided to eliminate Shiffman’s position. Shiffman was informed of the decision to eliminate his position on March 10, 2020, and the Royals did not hire anyone to replace him nor did they promote Shiffman’s junior employee to Senior Director.

Shiffman’s Claims

In July 2021, Shiffman filed his first amended petition for damages, alleging four claims, Shiffman alleged that while employed by the Royals, he experienced age and religious discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment all in violation of the MHRA.

First, in his petition, Shiffman claimed age discrimination in violation of the MHRA. He alleged that on March 10, 2020, he attended a meeting in which he was informed his position was being eliminated. This termination meeting was held ten days before Shiffman’s sixtieth birthday. Further, Shiffman alleged that since his termination, three other employees of the Royals were also "terminated and/or replaced by significantly younger employees." Shiffman said that he too was replaced by a "substantially younger employee" who was forty years old. Shiffman alleged that the "Royals ha[ve] a pattern or practice of discriminating against older employees as they have consistently terminated employees as soon as they approach the age of 60 while retaining younger employees with sub-par performance." Shiffman asserted the Royals would consistently fire older employees and keep younger employees and also restructure departments to "eliminate" positions held by older employees. Further, Shiffman pled that the Royals also favor "hiring younger employees over older applicants," and that Shiffman "has personally observed these discriminatory practices during the course of his employment." He also claimed the Royals interfered with his ability to do his job and refused to investigate his complaints of discrimination.

Second, Shiffman alleged religious discrimination in violation of the MHRA based on being treated differently because of his Jewish religion. Around February 2020, Shiffman attended a marketing meeting during which a coworker made a negative comment about Jews and "called [Shiffman] out" for being Jewish. Specifically, Shiffman alleged that this coworker, the Vice President of Publicity, made negative statements about Jews in a room full of other employees and "everyone else in the meeting fell silent, and the environment in the room immediately became very uncomfortable."

Third, Shiffman alleged retaliation in violation of the MHRA in that he reported unfair and discriminatory treatment and subsequently suffered numerous negative employment actions, and was thereby retaliated against for his complaint. Further, Shiffman alleged that he "opposed the treatment he received as an older employee and as a Jewish employee" and complained during his termination meeting "that he was being discriminated against based on his age, his perceived national origin and his religion." He alleged that he reported his coworker’s discriminatory comment to the Human Resources Director, but was terminated before he could make a formal written complaint. Shiffman also alleged that after his termination, the Royals retaliated against him by telling prospective employers that Shiffman failed to perform his job duties and responsibilities and that he had "multiple" prospective employers revoke their offers to interview him.

Finally, Shiffman alleged a hostile work environment in violation of the MHRA. Shiffman alleged that the Royals subjected Shiffman to "unwelcome harassment and discrimination in the form of unfair treatment, discipline and attacks on [his] character, ignored complaints, intentional discriminatory interference with his ability to do … his job duties/responsibilities, and retaliatory and unfair retaliation." Shiffman stated that the Royals’ harassment was motivated by Shiffman’s religion, age, and his complaints of unfair, discriminatory treatment; that the Royals knew or should have known about the harassment and discrimination; and that the discrimi- nation and hostile work environment was continuous and ongoing.

The Royals filed their answer in January 2022, and a motion for summary judgment in September 2022, along with a memorandum in support and a statement of uncontroverted facts.

Shiffman’s Motion to Strike

In October 2022, Shiffman filed a motion to strike portions of, and deny, the Royals’ motion for summary judgment. In his motion to strike, Shiffman argued that the CRO and COO’s affidavits (the Affidavits) should be struck along with any alleged fact statements citing those affidavits because the affidavits (1) were not based on personal knowledge, (2) were manufactured evidence, (3) were summaries prepared for litigation purposes, (4) were "replete" with inadmissible hearsay, and (5) made legal conclusions. Shiffman moved, inter alia, that those facts based on the Affidavits including "4, 16, 23-31, 52, 53, 62, and 63" as well as "24-31, 52, and 62-63" be struck. Shiffman also moved that facts "1-17, 23-26, 33-35, 38-43, 46, 47, 53-60, and 64" be struck as "immaterial" and that Exhibits A, C, E, G, and H be struck as "immaterial and irrelevant." Finally, Shiffman argued the entire motion for summary judgment should be struck because the Royals had "not met [their] burden to establish a prima face case in support of [their] motion for summary judgment." Shiffman also moved to reopen discovery in order to depose the CRO and COO.

In November, the Royals filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to strike. The Royals argued Shiffman’s motion to strike should be denied because the contested affidavits were based on...