Appeals court: Mental Health patient also may be 'employee'

At least in some cases, Missouri Department of Mental Health patients also may be "employees" able to sue the state for discrimination, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The three-judge panel's decision sent Christopher Klee's case back to Cole County Circuit Judge Dan Green for further proceedings.

Klee is a patient at the state's Southeast Missouri Mental Health Center (SMMHC) in Farmington.

Court records show he's been at the institution since November 2010, after pleading not guilty by reasons of mental disease or defect, and is being treated for pedophilia.

In March 2011, he began working part time for the institution, primarily as a dishwasher but, the appeals court noted, Klee "also worked to help build a greenhouse and grow food."

He was paid more than Missouri's minimum wage, and in each year, he completed a W-4 withholding form.

His annual W-2 forms "listed Klee as an employee and the State of Missouri as his employer," Judge Gary Witt wrote for the three-judge Kansas City panel.

The issue involved his withholdings - he had $50 withheld from each check in 2011, $100 in 2012 and $200 in 2013.

Under state law, the mental health center was able to automatically deduct a certain percentage of Klee's wages for reimbursement of his care from each paycheck.

However, Witt wrote, the SMMHC felt "Klee was 'gaming the system' by taking too large a withholding from his check, thereby depriving the State of Missouri of the (reimbursement) compensation to which it was entitled."

The legal battle began after Klee was told by his psychiatrist in March 2013 that he had to file a second W-4 form - with a decrease in deductions - or else he would be terminated from his job.

The court noted Klee "did as he was instructed and filed a new W-4 form."

In August 2013, Klee filed a charge of discrimination based on his disability with the Missouri Human Rights Commission.

In April 2014, the MHRC determined it lacked jurisdiction over the claim, saying there was no "employer-employee" relationship between Klee and SMMHC.

Klee asked the Cole County Circuit Court to review the commission's findings. In May 2016, Green agreed with the Human Rights Commission, leading Klee to take his case to the Western District appeals court, which heard oral arguments April 5 during its visit to William Woods University in Fulton.

The appeals court agreed with Klee that Green should not have ruled Klee was exempted from being an "employee," under language in the state's minimum wage law.

The court noted the Human Rights Act doesn't define "employee," so ordinary dictionary definitions apply.

"Klee falls within the classification as an employee of employer SMMHC, as he works for SMMHC in return for wages and, as a part time dishwasher and occasional greenhouse laborer, is not at the executive level," Witt wrote.

Since the Legislature didn't add the minimum wage law definitions of "employees" - or the exceptions to those definitions - to the Human Rights Act, the courts shouldn't either, the appeals court said.

The appeals court also disagreed with Green's finding that Klee wasn't an employee because his work was part of his ongoing mental health therapy.

Unlike prisoners in the Corrections department who are ordered to work as part of their incarceration, Witt noted, Klee is a patient, not a prisoner.

"He is not required to work, but has chosen to work," Witt wrote. "The purpose of the (Missouri Human Rights Act) is to protect individuals from discrimination.

"Neither the circuit court nor the MHRC has provided any valid argument as to why the purpose of the MHRA would not be furthered by providing its protections to Klee."