Major Analysis Daughtery v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3D 814 (MO. Banc 2007) - Case Study Example

In his termination, the City of Maryland Heights maintained that he was not in a position to carry out some essential tasks of his job as he began to suffer from complications that occurred from the accident. He was provided with an option of taking an early disability retirement to avoid termination. However, upon refusal to exercise the option, the City of Maryland Heights terminated him. The physical problems experienced by Daugherty started shortly after he commenced working as an officer in Maryland heights after an accident caused by a drunken truck driver while on duty supervising an accident scene.

The accident caused him serious back injuries that kept him from working for over twelve months. However, he later resumed his active duty. After approximately twelve years later, Daugherty was promoted to be a captain. Shortly after the promotion, Daugherty did not attend several months of work as a result of complications from his previous back injury. Later, in 2002, the City of Maryland Heights required that Daugherty should undergo an examination of his health status to determine if he was fit for his duty.

The deputy Chief of the Police for the City of Maryland Heights created a memorandum to be used in the evaluation of Daugherty health status, emphasizing on what he believed to be essential for Daugherty’s job. The memorandum was created using both the City’s official description as well as the Deputy Chief’s personal beliefs about what was required of an employee in the position of Daugherty, many of which were very demanding than those listed in the in the official description. However, other officers in the department testified that the position of Daugherty was viewed as a supervisory position.

Thus, it was highly unlikely that Daugherty would ever experience a situation that would require strenuous physical activity. The report provided by the physician stated that Daugherty was not able to perform any duty listed in the memorandum. Finally, the City of Maryland heights terminated Daugherty’s employment. Upon learning of the decision to terminate him, Daugherty made an appointment with his supervisor to discuss the decision. However, unknown the supervisor, Daugherty decided to make an audio recording of the conversation between him and the supervisor.

In the conversation, the supervisor stated that the City of Maryland Height’s administrator had an intention of getting rid of employees over 55 years old since their salaries were very costly to the City. Daugherty received the right-to sue letter from the Missouri Commission of Human Rights and brought suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. He alleged that his termination was as a result of his age and disability. Daugherty appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court that reversed the decision of the lower courts.

The Laws violated in the case The legal backgrounds provided by the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) render it unlawful for an employer to terminate an employee from employment because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, or national origin. Therefore, an employee who believes that the employer has violated the MHRA must file a complaint with the commission. Final verdict of the Court In the Daugherty v, City of Maryland Heights, case number 231 S.W 3D 814 (Mo. 2007) the Missouri Supreme Court acknowledged that the discrimination safeguards under the MHRA are not