Find an Arbitrator

Arbitrator Awards Nearly $20 Million in ‘Egregious’ Discrimination Cases

by Scott Lauck

January 2021

Scott Lauck

This article first appeared on Missouri Lawyers Media, here.

An arbitrator awarded nearly $20 million to two former employees of a St. Louis-area janitorial company in what he said were some of the most egregious employment-discrimination cases he’d ever seen.

Glenn Norton, of-counsel with Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch and a retired judge of the Court of Appeals Eastern District, on April 29 awarded more than $11.4 million to Harold Barnett, a 48-year-old Black employee who was terminated from Columbia Maintenance Company in 2014. 

In a separate order on the same day, Norton awarded more than $8.5 million to Charles Taylor, Barnett’s 50-year-old white supervisor, who had refused company owner William Hausman’s orders to fire him.

Norton found that Hausman — who, according to court records, died in November — used racial slurs and other derogatory names to refer to Barnett and to Taylor’s wife, who was of Mexican descent. Hausman ultimately ordered Taylor to “get rid of” Barnett even though he had received exclusively positive performance reviews, Norton found.

When Taylor refused, Hausman ultimately fired Barnett in February 2014 after he’d had trouble getting to work on a snowy day. Hausman fired Taylor the following July after ordering him to rebuild a dozen vacuum cleaners in a day, which Norton found was “impossible.”

Norton described both cases as among “the most egregious and blatant Missouri Human Rights case violations this Arbitrator has seen.” 

In an email, Gretchen Myers, an attorney for both plaintiffs, called them “two amazing men of courage and conviction.” 

The lawsuits originally were filed in St. Louis County, but the parties submitted them to binding arbitration in St. Louis after the defendants’ insurers denied coverage. James Wyrsch of Khazaeli & Wyrsch, an attorney for the defendants, said in an email that “arbitration was conducted and award was issued only after Defendants and Plaintiffs entered into a limitation of liability agreement” under Section 537.065 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.

Under that law, defendants who face a denial of coverage can agree to allow the plaintiff to obtain a judgment against them so long as the plaintiff seeks to collect that award only from the defendant’s insurance policy, resulting in separate litigation against the insurer in which the plaintiff must prove there was coverage.

Such a judgment is determined at a bench trial or, as in this case, through arbitration. The defendant typically doesn’t put up a fight, but the Columbia Maintenance defendants denied the plaintiffs’ allegations, and their attorney offered “a hard-hitting cross examination” and a “forceful closing,” Norton wrote. 

The insurers, AMCO and Depositors, were present for the arbitration but didn’t participate. They are contesting coverage in a pending suit in federal court. 

The St. Louis Circuit Court subsequently confirmed the awards and added post-judgment interest at 5.25 percent. An appeal of those judgments is pending in the Court of Appeals Eastern District. The plaintiffs have filed separate litigation seeking to recover the awards from the insurers for Columbia Maintenance and a related company, MK Maintenance LLC, which was found liable in Taylor’s case but not in Barnett’s. 

 

$11.44 million and $8.56 million arbitration awards

Employment

Breakdown for Barnett: $51,019 past lost wages; $145,396 future lost wages; $2,000,000 compensatory; $9,000,000 punitive damages; $240,350 attorney’s fee; $244.93 costs. Total award of $11,437,009.90.

Breakdown for Taylor: $75,212.75 past lost wages; $248,339.84 future lost wages; $2,000,000 compensatory damages; $6,000,000 punitive damages; $232,105 attorney’s fees; $526.13 in costs. Total award of $8,556,183.72

Venue: St. Louis Circuit Court

Case Number/Date: 2022-CC00818 and 2022-CC00819/April 29, 2020

Arbitrator: Glenn Norton

Plaintiff’s Expert (for Taylor): Lanie Champa, St. Louis (psychological)

Captions: Harold Barnett v. Columbia Maintenance Company and William Hausman; Charles Taylor v. Columbia Maintenance Company, MK Maintenance LLC and William Hausman

Plaintiffs’ Attorney: Gretchen Myers, The Law Offices of Gretchen Myers, St. Louis

Defendants’ Attorney: James Wyrsch, Khazaeli & Wyrsch, St. Louis

 

Scott Lauck is a senior reporter with Missouri Lawyers Weekly and is based in Kansas City.



Website: https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-lauck-298bb03/

Additional articles by Scott Lauck
The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Arbitrate.com or of reviewing editors.
PREV     NEXT
 

Arbitration News

Bringing a Case to Arbitration Should be Easier Following Recent Ninth Circuit Decision Recently, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that a plaintiff may not avoid arbitration and manufacture appellate jurisdiction simply by vo ...more
Third Circuit Holds That an Arbitration Award Was a Judicial Record and Must Be Unsealed Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an arbitration award filed with a petition to confirm the award was a ...more
Second Circuit Declines to Vacate Foreign Arbitral Award Under New York Convention Absent Valid Reason In Pagaduan v. Carnival Corp., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Eastern District of New York's order declining Pagaduan's motio ...more
New York City Set To End At-Will Employment For Fast Food Workers On December 17, the New York City Council passed two bills that prohibit fast food employers from terminating employees unless they have just cause or bona fide economic reasons for ...more
Arbitration Provision Survives Agent Termination Has the judicial preference for presuming the survivability of arbitration clauses governing workplace disputes reached canonical status? According to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern Dis ...more
Judge McMahon Rules Outside Counsel’s Pre-Suit Download of Online Dating App Does Not Bind Party to Arbitration Agreement On December 15, 2020, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Perry Street Software, Inc.’s moti ...more
Ninth Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Employment Arbitration Restrictions The legal battles over Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which attempts to prohibit mandatory employment arbitration agreements, continue. The Ninth Circuit heard the much anti ...more
Russia's Doping Ban Reduced to Two Years, Court of Arbitration for Sport Rules Russia's ban from major international sporting events has been halved by the  Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but the country will still not ...more
Appeals Court Sends ‘Leaving Neverland’ Fight to Arbitration A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a lawsuit filed by the Michael Jackson estate over an HBO documentary about two of the late pop star’s sex abuse accus ...more