A state appeals court Tuesday rejected all three challenges former Missouri Capitol Police Lt. Stacy Minze raised following a second trial on her claims of sex and disability discrimination and retaliation.
Minze started working with the Capitol Police in 1997, and in March 2007, while she was working, she suffered an on-the-job injury that required surgery in August of that year.
After that, she was required to do light duty work.
When she faced a second surgery, she asked for additional light duty but said Capitol Police Chief Todd Hurt denied that request.
Minze sued the state Public Safety Department, Capitol Police and Hurt in June 2009.
A Cole County jury ruled against her on the sex discrimination claim but for her on the retaliation accusation. She was awarded $70,000 in actual damages and another $70,000 in punitive damages.
Cole County Circuit Judge Dan Green added another $360,113.42 for attorney's fees and costs, making the total award $500,113.40.
However, the state appealed and won a re-trial, citing a faulty instruction to the first jury.
Minze modified her retaliation claim before the second trial, which the jury heard Dec. 14-21, 2015, and ruled against Minze on all counts.
She appealed - and the appeals court's ruling Tuesday upheld the second jury's verdicts.
Minze argued Green should not have admitted the state to use information from the first trial during the second trial, then use that information to impeach her testimony.
However, Chief Judge Mark Pfeiffer wrote for the three-judge panel: "The admissibility of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, including the introduction of evidence for the purposes of impeachment.
"A trial court abuses its discretion if its ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so unreasonable and arbitrary that it shocks the sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful, deliberate consideration."
That didn't happen in Minze's second case, Pfeiffer wrote, where she was arguing against "use of evidence demonstrating that Minze had previously made statements that were inconsistent in a material way with Minze's trial testimony."
The state argued Minze had cited a retaliation claim involving Hurt's refusal to offer her more light-duty work but didn't include that allegation in her court filing.
Quoting a 1968 state Supreme Court opinion, Pfeiffer wrote: "Broadly speaking, any statement of a witness inconsistent with his testimony should be admitted to discredit or impeach him, whether made in or out of court."
Minze also argued Green allowed the attorney general's office to mis-state the law during closing arguments.
The appeals court ruled that didn't happen, but added: "As a general principle, even if counsel misstates the law in closing argument, as long as the trial court properly instructs the jury, we will rarely find reversible error.
"Minze does not argue that the jury was not provided with the proper law regarding retaliatory discharge."