Moriarity v. Kansas City

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moriarity v. Kansas City

504 S.W.3d 724, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 762, 2016 WL 4191977

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 9, 2016

DocketWD78555 (Consolidated with WD78608)

StatusPublished

This text of 504 S.W.3d 724 (Moriarity v. Kansas City) 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

Moriarity v. Kansas City, 504 S.W.3d 724, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 762, 2016 WL 4191977 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Deborah Moriarity appeals the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the Kansas City, Missouri School District on her claims against the District for age discrimination and retaliation. She contends that the trial court erred in denying her Batson challenge to the District’s peremptory strike of a veni-reperson and in refusing to submit her proposed verdict directing instruction on her age discrimination claim. She also con[725]*725tends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of her post-termination disability application and in excluding evidence of two prior age discrimination claims brought against the District by former employees. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Deborah Moriarity appeals the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the Kansas City, Missouri School District on her claims against the District for age discrimination and retaliation. She contends that the trial court erred in denying her Batson challenge to the District’s peremptory strike of a veni-reperson and in refusing to submit her proposed verdict directing instruction on her age discrimination claim. She also con[725]*725tends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of her post-termination disability application and in excluding evidence of two prior age discrimination claims brought against the District by former employees. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 S.W.3d 724, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 762, 2016 WL 4191977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moriarity-v-kansas-city-moctapp-2016.