Carter v. Missouri Baptist Center

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carter v. Missouri Baptist Center

499 S.W.3d 765, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 974, 2016 WL 5724845

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 4, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103937

StatusPublished

This text of 499 S.W.3d 765 (Carter v. Missouri Baptist Center) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. Missouri Baptist Center, 499 S.W.3d 765, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 974, 2016 WL 5724845 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Carter (“Appellant”) filed a petition for damages against Missouri Baptist Medical Center (“MOBAP”) and its president Joan Magruder (“Magruder”) alleging retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). Appellant alleged MOBAP and Magruder violated the MHRA by not hiring him for the position of Chief of Anesthesiology (“Chief’) at MOBAP. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of MOBAP and Magru-der finding that Appellant’s application was for an independent contractor position; therefore, he did not have standing to sue for employment discrimination under the MHRA. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of MOBAP and Magruder. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Carter (“Appellant”) filed a petition for damages against Missouri Baptist Medical Center (“MOBAP”) and its president Joan Magruder (“Magruder”) alleging retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). Appellant alleged MOBAP and Magruder violated the MHRA by not hiring him for the position of Chief of Anesthesiology (“Chief’) at MOBAP. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of MOBAP and Magru-der finding that Appellant’s application was for an independent contractor position; therefore, he did not have standing to sue for employment discrimination under the MHRA. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of MOBAP and Magruder. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 S.W.3d 765, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 974, 2016 WL 5724845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-missouri-baptist-center-moctapp-2016.