Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Fifth Division
from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis Honorable
M. Hess, Chief Judge.
Jeffery ("Appellant") appeals from the judgment of
the circuit court of the City of St. Louis dismissing his
suit of employment discrimination under the Missouri Human
Rights Act ("MHRA") for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies. Appellant argues that he properly
exhausted his administrative remedies because his
administrative charge provided his employer, the St. Louis
City Fire Department (the "Department"), with
notice of the claim he later pursued in his petition. We
agree Appellant exhausted his administrative remedies. We
reverse the circuit court's judgment and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
is an African American employed with the Department. On March
27, 2014, Appellant filed an administrative charge with the
Missouri Commission on Human Rights ("MCHR") and
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that:
I. I am an African American . . .
II. In 2013, [the Department] announced multiple vacancies
for Battalion Chief. I applied for the position and . . .
completed all the necessary testing requirements. On November
25, 2013, I was notified by [the Department] that I did not
score high enough to be ranked on the eligible list. At the
time of my testing I had been with the department for over 25
years, and had been a Captain for over 16 years . . . I do
not believe the test accurately measured my knowledge,
skills, and abilities.
III. Given that the majority of those who scored high enough
to be ranked on the eligible list were Caucasian individuals,
I believe the test had a disparate impact on African American
IV. Based on the above stated reasons, I believe I was
discriminated against because of my race, African American,
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
26, 2015, Appellant received a right to sue letter from the
MCHR. Appellant filed suit against the Department on August
24, 2015. In his petition, Appellant alleged, inter
30. [The Department] has engaged in unlawful discriminatory
acts that are prohibited under the [Missouri Human Rights
Act]. . . . .
33. [The Department] treated [Appellant] inequitably based
upon his race and provided unfavorable workplace terms,
conditions, and privileges of employment as compared to other
similarly situated employees who are not African American.
34. [Appellant] was denied a promotion . . . on the basis of
his race despite his superior experience and aptitude
compared to similarly situated Caucasian ...