Miller v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Miller v. State

482 S.W.3d 826, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 183, 2016 WL 796714

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 1, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102738

StatusPublished

This text of 482 S.W.3d 826 (Miller v. State) 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

Miller v. State, 482 S.W.3d 826, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 183, 2016 WL 796714 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Marva Miller appeals the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of defendant Missouri Department of Social Services (“DSS”) on her claims of employment discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (the “MHRA”) and retaliation under the Workers’ Compensation statute. Because Miller fails to present a plausible account of facts indicating that unlawful discrimination or retaliation occurred in this case, we find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of DSS. Accordingly, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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

Marva Miller appeals the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of defendant Missouri Department of Social Services (“DSS”) on her claims of employment discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (the “MHRA”) and retaliation under the Workers’ Compensation statute. Because Miller fails to present a plausible account of facts indicating that unlawful discrimination or retaliation occurred in this case, we find that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of DSS. Accordingly, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 826, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 183, 2016 WL 796714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-state-moctapp-2016.