January 27, 2021
The Court of Appeals Western District ruled Jan. 19 that a woman can continue her discrimination suit against the University of Missouri despite the school’s claims that she had released it from liability.
The court said it was for a jury to decide whether the document that Ann McGruder signed contained a “mutual mistake” intended to apply to a separate entity. As a result, the court said, a Boone County judge should not have dismissed the claim at this early stage of the litigation.
McGruder’s argument stemmed from the complex nature of her employment. She alleges she was subjected to sex discrimination and retaliation while working at the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, which is part of the university. When she was laid off as part of a departmental reorganization in 2018, she declined to accept a severance package that would have required her to abandon her legal claims.
McGruder then moved to the Alfred Friendly Foundation. Although the not-for-profit corporation is located on campus, it is a separate legal entity that isn’t controlled by the university. While some of its staff were joint employees of the foundation and the school, McGruder’s salary came entirely from the foundation’s budget, though the checks were issued through the university’s payroll system.
McGruder was laid off from the foundation in 2019, and she accepted its severance package. The foundation, however, used a university-issued form without making any alterations to it. On paper, at least, McGruder appeared to have released her claims against the university.
The appeals court, however, said McGruder’s claim that the release was a mutual mistake was a fact issue. The agreement allegedly was intended to be solely between McGruder and the foundation and would have had no effect on the pending claims against the university.
“McGruder’s allegations were sufficient to put in issue whether the written severance agreement inaccurately memorialized the agreement she reached with the Foundation, despite its clear language,” Judge Alok Ahuja wrote for the court. Judges Thomas H. Newton and Thomas N. Chapman concurred.
The university argued that it hadn’t made any mistake and that McGruder’s allegations concerned the foundation as a “third party.”
“The University’s argument begs the question. It assumes that the parties to the severance agreement were McGruder and the University,” Ahuja wrote. “The University’s argument is contrary to the fundamental premise underlying McGruder’s mutual mistake claim: that the University is not a party to the relevant agreement, but was mistakenly named in the writing which memorializes her agreement. McGruder alleges that her agreement was with the Foundation, not the University.”
Andrew Hirth of TGH Litigation in Columbia, an attorney for McGruder, couldn’t be reached for comment. Christian Basi, a spokesman for the university, declined to comment.
The case is McGruder v. Curators of the University of Missouri, WD83719.
