Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By John Ashcroft Institute for Constitutional Studies

Missouri Court of Appeals dismisses mandamus petitioner's action to compel the Missouri Human Rights Commission to pay the petitioner her attoreny fees and costs arising from employment discrimination case the Commission declined to pursue.
Gloria Painter, et al., Relator, Paul Davis, Appellant, v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, et al., Respondents. Case Number: WD68556 05/06/2008 Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Richard G. Callahan
Paul Davis appeals the circuit court's order and judgment dismissing his claim for attorneys fees and litigation costs. Davis contends he was entitled to attorneys fees because the original mandamus proceeding he filed in the circuit court against the Missouri Human Rights Commission, challenging the commission's "administrative closure" of his complaint of discrimination, was an "agency proceeding or civil action arising therefrom" within the meaning of the governing statutes. AFFIRMED. Division holds: Section 536.085, RSMo, defines an "agency proceeding" to be "an adversary proceeding in a contested case pursuant to this chapter in which the state is represented by counsel . . .." "Contested case" is in turn defined in section 536.010(4), RSMo, as a proceeding "before an agency" in which rights "are required by law to be determined after hearing." The underlying administrative investigation and closure of Davis's discrimination complaint was not a "contested case," because no formal hearing was required in the course of the commission's investigation of Davis's complaint or its decision to close the file. Therefore, litigation arising from the agency's actions could not constitute an "agency proceeding or civil action arising therefrom" as required to entitle Davis to a fee award.

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on May 11, 2008 (boomark / email).