Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Aug. 12, 2025 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Kevin Rhodes, Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: SC100998

• Disposition: APPEAL DISMISSED

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

APPEAL DISMISSED

Combined Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
en banc
KEVIN RHODES, ) Opinion issued August 12, 2025,
) and modified on the Court’s own
Appellant-Respondent, ) motion September 9, 2025
)
v. ) No. SC100998
)
MISSOURI HIGHWAYS and )
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, )
)
Respondent-Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY
The Honorable J. Dale Youngs, Judge

Former employee, Kevin Rhodes, and the Missouri Highways and Transportation

Commission (“the commission”) both appeal the circuit court’s judgment following a

jury verdict in Rhodes’s favor on his claims for hostile work environment and retaliation

under the Missouri Human Rights Act (“the act”). Rhodes asks this Court to determine

the constitutional validity of the damages cap in section 213.111.4. 1 On cross-appeal, the

commission argues Rhodes failed to make a submissible case for his claims. Because the

1
Rhodes specifically argues the damages cap violates his right to a jury trial, equal
protection, due process, the mandate for the separation of powers, and the open court
provision of the state constitution. All statutory citations are to RSMo 2016 unless
otherwise indicated.
judgment is not final for its failure to rule on Rhodes’s request for equitable relief and

prejudgment interest, however, this Court dismisses the appeal.

Factual and Procedural Background

Rhodes began his employment in 2001 with the commission, which terminated his

employment in December 2019. In the last year of his employment, Rhodes was accused

of using a racial slur, and the commission conducted an investigation. Rhodes filed

grievances regarding treatment by his supervisor during the investigation. Rhodes was

suspended and, ultimately, terminated after the investigation substantiated not only the

allegation that he used a racial slur but also other allegations of workplace misconduct.

Rhodes filed two subsequent charges of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on

Human Rights, which both times issued Rhodes a notice of right to sue.

Rhodes filed his petition in the circuit court in March 2021, alleging various

violations of the act, including sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work

environment. After trial, a jury found in the commission’s favor on Rhodes’s claim of

sex discrimination and in Rhodes’s favor on his claims of retaliation and hostile work

environment. The jury assessed the following damages: $24,997 for back pay; $24,997

for past economic damages; $21,000 for future economic losses; $180,000 for non-

economic losses; and $1.7 million for punitive damages. In April 2023, the circuit court

entered judgment on the jury verdicts, applying section 213.111.4’s damages cap to the

jury’s assessed damages and awarding Rhodes $24,997 for back pay and a $500,000

lump sum for past economic losses, future economic losses, non-economic losses, and

punitive damages. The commission moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict,

2
arguing Rhodes failed to make a submissible case on each of his claims. The circuit

court overruled the motion.

Rhodes and the commission cross-appealed. Rhodes argued section 213.111.4’s

damages cap is unconstitutional, and the commission argued the circuit court erred in

overruling its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court

transferred the case to this Court pursuant to article V, section 11 of the Missouri

Constitution based on this Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction to determine

constitutional issues. Mo. Const. art. V,

sec. 3.

Appellate Review

The right to appeal is purely statutory. Anderson v. Metcalf, 300 S.W.2d 377, 378

(Mo. 1957); section 512.020. “A prerequisite to appellate review is that there be a final

judgment.” Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 244 (Mo. banc 1997) (internal quotation

omitted); section 512.020(5). It is the duty of reviewing courts to determine whether a

final, appealable judgment has been entered. Anderson, 300 S.W.2d at 378.

A final judgment is a legally enforceable judicial order that “disposes of all claims

(or the last pending claim) in a lawsuit.” Jefferson Cnty. 9-1-1 Dispatch v. Plaggenberg,

645 S.W.3d 473, 475 (Mo. banc 2022); Wilson v. City of St. Louis, 600 S.W.3d 763, 768

(Mo. banc 2020). To determine how many pending claims exist that must be disposed,

“the focus is on the number of legal rights asserted in the action.” Jefferson Cnty, 645

S.W.3d at 476 (quoting Comm. for Educ. Equal. v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 451 (Mo. banc

1994)). “[A] claim is the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right

3
enforceable in the courts.” Comm. for Educ. Equal., 878 S.W.2d at 451 (“CEE”)

(internal quotations omitted). “If a complaint seeks to enforce only one legal right, it

states a single claim, regardless of the fact that it seeks multiple remedies.” Id. “[I]f

multiple forms of relief are sought with respect to one set of facts, it is still one claim, and

an order resolving some prayers for relief and not others does not fully resolve that claim

and is not a judgment . . . .” Wilson, 600 S.W.3d at 768 n.6 (citing CEE, 878 S.W.2d at

451 (dismissing the appeal, noting “the circuit court did not dispose of all of the remedies

sought as to any one claim for relief”)).

Each of Rhodes’s counts in his petition includes the following prayer for relief:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendant, finding the
acts and practices of the Defendant violated MO. REV. STAT. § 213.010 et
seq.,; for actual, compensatory, and punitive damages; all costs, expenses,
expert witness fees, and attorneys’ fees incurred herein; prejudgment and
post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate; appropriate equitable relief
including, but not limited to, requiring Defendant to place Plaintiff in the
same position he would have been absent the illegal discrimination and/or
front-pay; and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

(Emphasis added). The circuit court’s judgment includes awards of actual,

compensatory, and punitive damages; attorney fees, costs, and expenses; and post-

judgment interest. The judgment is silent, however, regarding prejudgment interest and

appropriate equitable relief. 2

In cases presenting mixed issues of law and equity, “trials should be conducted to

allow the legal claims to be tried to a jury, with the court reserving for its own

2
The judgment also fails to include a catch-all statement, such as: “All other relief
requested is denied.”

4
determination only equitable claims and defenses, which it should decide consistently

with the factual findings made by the jury.” State ex rel. Barker v. Tobben, 311 S.W.3d

798, 800 (Mo. banc 2010). “The trial court has discretion to try such cases in the most

practical and efficient manner possible, consistent with Missouri’s historical preference

for a litigant’s ability to have a jury trial on claims of law.” State ex rel. Leonardi v.

Sherry, 137 S.W.3d 462, 473 (Mo. banc 2004). Circuit courts typically address the

equitable claims following a jury trial in which the parties’ legal claims are tried. Payne

v. Cunningham, 549 S.W.3d 43, 50 (Mo. App. 2018) (“Logically, there is a marked

preference to conduct a jury trial first, with the court reserving for its own determination

only bench-tried issues, whether equitable or jury-waived.” (internal quotation omitted));

See, e.g., N. Farms, Inc. v. Jenkins, 472 S.W.3d 617, 630 (Mo. App. 2015); Med. Plaza

One, LLC v. Davis, 552 S.W.3d 143, 152 (Mo. App. 2018). Here, the circuit court

entirely failed to consider the equitable relief requested, leaving such issues open for

further adjudication. 3 For this reason, there is no final judgment, and this Court may not

consider the merits of the parties’ appeals.

Conclusion

3
The judgment wholly fails to address the disposition of Rhodes’s request for front pay
and, therefore, is not final. The same applies as to Rhodes’s request for prejudgment
interest. Because no purported judgment disposed of Rhodes’s requests for prejudgment
interest and front pay, there is no final judgment. Even when no party questions the
appealability of a circuit court’s order, “[t]his Court is nevertheless required to determine
whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A prerequisite to appellate review is that
there be a final judgment. If the order of the trial court was not a final judgment, this Court
lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.” Boley v. Knowles, 905 S.W.2d 86,
88 (Mo. banc 1995) (internal citations and quotations omitted); section 512.020(5).

5
The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final judgment.

---

KELLY C. BRONIEC, JUDGE

All concur.

6