Catharine Sue Carter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Carter (Deceased), Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant.
Headline: Missouri Department of Corrections did not wrongfully terminate employee with disability, court rules
Citation:
Case Summary
This case involves a dispute over whether the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) wrongfully terminated David Carter's employment. Carter, who was employed by MDOC, was diagnosed with a serious medical condition that required him to take leave. He requested an accommodation, specifically a transfer to a less physically demanding position, which he believed was available. MDOC denied his transfer request and subsequently terminated his employment. Carter's estate sued MDOC, alleging discrimination based on his disability and breach of contract. The trial court ruled in favor of MDOC. The estate appealed, arguing that the trial court made errors in its decision. The appellate court reviewed the evidence and legal arguments, ultimately finding that the trial court did not err in its judgment.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The Department of Corrections did not violate the employee's rights by denying his transfer request.
- The trial court did not err in its previous ruling in favor of the Department of Corrections.
Entities and Participants
Parties
- Catharine Sue Carter (party)
- David Carter (party)
- Missouri Department of Corrections (company)
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (5)
Q: What was the main issue in this case?
The main issue was whether the Missouri Department of Corrections wrongfully terminated David Carter's employment after he requested a transfer due to a medical condition.
Q: What was David Carter's medical situation?
David Carter was diagnosed with a serious medical condition that necessitated taking leave and led him to request a transfer to a less physically demanding role.
Q: What was the outcome of the trial court's decision?
The trial court ruled in favor of the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Q: What did the appellate court decide?
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no errors and ruling in favor of the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Q: What legal claims were made by Carter's estate?
Carter's estate alleged discrimination based on disability and breach of contract.
Case Details
| Case Name | Catharine Sue Carter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Carter (Deceased), Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Citation | |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-08-12 |
| Docket Number | SC100999 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Impact Score | 45 / 100 |
| Legal Topics | employment discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination, breach of contract, employer liability |
| Jurisdiction | mo |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This AI-generated analysis of Catharine Sue Carter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Carter (Deceased), Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant. was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on employment discrimination or from the Missouri Supreme Court:
-
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, et al., Respondents, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Appellants.
Appellate Court Upholds Block on Missouri Law Defunding Planned ParenthoodMissouri Supreme Court · 2025-08-12
-
Kevin Rhodes, Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, Respondent-Appellant.
Court Reverses Summary Judgment, Allows Retaliation Claim to ProceedMissouri Supreme Court · 2025-08-12
-
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Dustin Curtis Winter, Appellant.
Appellate Court Upholds Meth Possession Conviction After Reviewing Evidence and Jury InstructionsMissouri Supreme Court · 2025-08-12
-
Jessie L. Nelson, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
and
Cameron D. Woods, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Felony Murder Rule Against Due Process ChallengeMissouri Supreme Court · 2025-07-22
-
C.S., Appellant, vs. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Justice Information Service; Lafayette Prosecuting Attorney, Respondents.
Court rules against former employee's discrimination claims against Missouri State Highway Patrol and Lafayette Prosecuting Attorney.Missouri Supreme Court · 2025-07-22
-
Cedric Dewayne Mack, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals Upholds Drug Conviction, Finding Traffic Stop LawfulMissouri Supreme Court · 2025-07-22
-
Christopher A. Scott, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court rules against former employee alleging retaliatory termination by the State of MissouriMissouri Supreme Court · 2025-07-22
-
In re: Ryan Christopher McCarty, Respondent.
Missouri Supreme Court Permanently Disbars Attorney Ryan Christopher McCarty for Professional MisconductMissouri Supreme Court · 2025-07-22