Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Amanda Gill Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
amanda-gill
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Employment Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Amanda Gill

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 1, 2022

Amanda Gill, Appellant, v. City of St. Peters, Respondent.

Appellant

Amanda Gill appealed the circuit court's dismissal of Count II of her petition, which alleged sex discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) based on a disparate impact theory. The circuit court dismissed the claim, finding it time-barred and that Missouri courts do not recognize a disparate impact claim under the MHRA. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Gill's claim was time-barred as her transfer was a discrete act not subject to the continuing violation theory, and that the Lilly Ledbetter Act does not extend MHRA filing periods. The court further held that Missouri courts have not recognized a disparate impact claim under the MHRA, and Gill failed to plead facts to support such a claim.