Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)

Citation
Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)
Parent Document
Mignone v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 546 S.W.3d 23 (2018)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
2018-02-06

Other Sections in This Document (127)

Full Text

1,252 chars
Consistent with Soto , Instructions No. 12 and No. 13 should have required the jury to find that Mignone had a reasonable, good-faith belief that the conduct she challenged violated the MHRA. The Department cites no authority to suggest, however, that the omission of "good faith" materially affected the jury's verdicts, when the relevant instructions already required the jury to find that Mignone's belief was "reasonable." In its Reply Brief, the Department suggests that requiring the jury to find a "good faith" belief would have required it to find that Mignone subjectively believed that she had grounds for complaint, while the requirement of a "reasonable belief" embodies only an objective standard. In the absence of authority indicating that a jury would understand the requirements of "good faith" and "reasonableness" differently, we are unwilling to hold that the omission of "good faith" from the verdict directors constituted reversible error. We note that, in the analogous context of federal anti-retaliation and "whistleblower"-protection statutes, federal courts have repeatedly held that a requirement that a worker have a "reasonable belief" in the illegality of conduct includes *39both objective and subjective components.4 C.