Search form

Parent Company not ‘Employer’ under Missouri Law, Court Rules, Reverses $1.5 Million Award

By Jessica L. Liss and Daniel P. O'Donnell, Jr.
  • November 12, 2015

An employer’s parent corporation that did not “directly act[] in the interest” of the employer was not a covered employer under the Missouri Human Rights Act liable for harassment and retaliation, a Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled. Diaz v. AutoZoners, LLC, d/b/a AutoZone, et al., No. WD77861 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2015). The Court applied a modified “economic realities” test and reversed the jury verdict and judgment of $1,500,000 in punitive damages against the parent corporation.

Background

Delise Diaz sued her employer, AutoZoners, LLC, and its parent corporation, AutoZone, Inc., for alleged hostile work environment harassment, caused by two customers, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act.

A jury found in favor of Diaz on her hostile work environment claim, but found in favor of the defendants on her retaliation claim. It awarded Diaz $75,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages against AutoZoners. The plaintiff was awarded $1,500,000 in punitive damages against AutoZone. The trial court also awarded the plaintiff $243,826.25 in attorney’s fees and $10,075.05 in costs. AutoZone appealed, arguing it was not an employer under the MHRA.

Definition of Employer

The MHRA defines an “employer” to include “any person employing six or more persons within the state, and any person directly acting in the interest of an employer.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.010(7). Since AutoZone did not employ at least six persons in Missouri, the appellate court must determine whether AutoZone is covered by the MHRA because it “directly acted in the interest” of AutoZoners.

Parent Corporation not Employer

The appeals court found that AutoZone was not an employer under the MHRA and reversed judgment against AutoZone.

The Court adopted a modified version of the “economic realities” test typically used in Missouri wage cases to determine whether an entity is “directly acting in the interest of” the employer. Under the modified economic realities test, courts examine the following factors:

  1. who was responsible for establishing policies and training employees concerning harassment;
  2. who was responsible for receiving, investigating, and responding to harassment complaints; and
  3. who had the power to discipline employees who may have failed to comply with anti-harassment policies.

Although AutoZone provided AutoZoners with a store handbook, code of conduct, and other human resources guidelines, the Court found the provision of such documents, in and of itself, did not establish that AutoZone directly oversaw or was actively involved.

Likewise, the fact that AutoZone responded to Diaz’s charge of discrimination (after the harassment occurred and had been remedied), the Court said, did not establish that AutoZone was Diaz’s employer at the time or that it directly oversaw or was actively involved. Accordingly, the Court concluded that AutoZone was not Diaz’s employer and reversed the punitive damages judgment against it.

The Court emphasized that separate corporations should be “regarded as wholly distinct legal entities, even if one partly or wholly owns the other.”

For additional information regarding this case, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 30, 2017

Chicago Adopts ‘Hands Off Pants On’ Law to Protect Hotel Workers from Sexual Harassment, Assault

October 30, 2017

To provide hospitality workers greater protections against sexual harassment and assault, the Chicago City Council passed the “Hands Off Pants On” Ordinance on October 11, 2017. The Ordinance requires all hotels in the City to adopt a panic button system and an anti-sexual harassment policy. The Ordinance was passed after months of... Read More

October 24, 2017

California Adds ‘Transgender,’ ‘Gender Nonconforming Individuals’ to Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors

October 24, 2017

Employers subject to California’s mandatory sexual harassment training requirement for supervisors will need to ensure their programs include prevention of harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation following an amendment (SB 396) to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). On October 15... Read More

October 5, 2017

Department of Justice Releases Memorandum Restricting Transgender Worker Protection under Title VII

October 5, 2017

On October 4, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the Department of Justice’s position that gender identity is protected as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination — taking a position that is contrary to current guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a... Read More

Related Practices