Supreme Court of Missouri
en banc

TABLE OF INSTRUCTIONS
MAI 2.03 EXPLANATORY – ORDER OF INSTRUCTIONS
(Instruction – Revision)
 (Committee Comment – New)

MAI 31.24 VERDICT DIRECTING – EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION – MISSOURI

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

(Instruction - New)
(Notes on Use – New)
(Committee Comment – New)

MAI 31.25 VERDICT DIRECTING – LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION – EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION – MISSOURI HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
(Instruction - New)
(Notes on Use – New)
(Committee Comment – New)


1.  Additions and revisions of previously approved MAI-CIVIL Instructions, Notes on Use and Committee Comments as listed above, having been prepared by the Committee on Jury Instructions - Civil and reviewed by the Court, are hereby adopted and approved.

2.  The Instructions, Notes on Use and Committee Comments revised as set forth in the specific exhibits attached hereto must be used on and after July 1, 2005, and may be used prior thereto; any such use shall not be presumed to be error.

3.  It is further ordered that this order and the specific exhibits attached hereto shall be published in the South Western Reporter and the Journal of The Missouri Bar.

Day - to - Day

____________________
RONNIE L. WHITE
Chief Justice


2.03 [2005 Revision] Explanatory - Order of Instructions


As you remember, the court gave you a general instruction before the presentation of any evidence in this case.  The court will not repeat that instruction at this time.  However, that instruction and the additional instructions, to be given to you now, constitute the law of this case and each such instruction is equally binding upon you.  You should consider each instruction in light of and in harmony with the other instructions, and you should apply the instructions as a whole to the evidence.  Words or phrases which are not otherwise defined for you as part of these instructions should be accorded their ordinary meaning.  The order in which the instructions are given is no indication of their relative importance.  All of the instructions are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room.


For cases addressing the issue of what words and phrases should be defined in instructions, see: Steffens v. Paramount Properties, Inc., 667 S.W.2d 725, 727 (Mo. App. 1984),  and Huff v. Union Electric Ca, 598 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Mo. App. 1980).


31.24 [2005 New] Verdict Directing - Employment Discrimination – Missouri Human Rights
Act

(Approved March 7, 2005; Effective July 1 , 2005)

Your verdict must be for plaintiff if you believe:

First, defendant (here insert the alleged discriminatory act, such as “failed to hire”, “discharged” or other act within the scope of Section 213.055, RSMo) plaintiff, and

Second, (here insert one or more of the protected classifications supported by the evidence such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, or disability) was a contributing factor in such (here, repeat alleged discriminatory act, such as “failure to hire”, discharge”, etc.), and

Third, as a direct result of such conduct, plaintiff sustained damage.

*[unless you believe plaintiff is not entitled to recover by reason of Instruction Number (here insert number of affirmative defense instruction)].


* Add if affirmative defense is submitted.  

This bracketed phrase should not be used to submit lawful justification under MAI 31.25.


Section 213.055, RSMo.  Unlawful Employment Practices, provides in part:

1. It shall be an unlawful employment practice:

(1) For an employer, because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability of any individual:

(a) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability;

In State ex rel. Diehl v. O’Malley.  95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. banc 2003), the Supreme Court of Missouri held that there is a right to a jury trial in actions for damages under the Missouri Human Rights Act, Section 213.055, RSMo, et seq.



31.25 [2005 New] Verdict Directing - Lawful Justification - Employment Discrimination –
Missouri Human Rights Act


Your verdict must be for defendant if you believe:

First, defendant (here insert alleged discriminatory act submitted in plaintiff’s verdict directing instruction such as “failed to hire”, “discharged” or other act within the scope of Section 213.055, RSMo) plaintiff because (here set forth the alleged lawful reason such action was taken), and

Second, in so doing (here insert the protected classification submitted by plaintiff, such as race, color, religion, national origin, etc.) was not a contributing factor.


See MAI 31.24.

This verdict directing instruction must be used to submit lawful justification.