Missouri Case Party

Edgar Alfonzo Banks 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: edgar-alfonzo-banks
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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.

Employment Law Civil Litigation

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.

Free Consultation Call Ott Law Firm

Cases Involving Edgar Alfonzo Banks

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Oct 26, 2021

Edgar Alfonzo Banks vs. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority

Appellant

Edgar A. Banks sued the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) for sex discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The trial court dismissed Banks' claims for failure to state a claim, finding that the KCATA, a bi-state agency created by an interstate compact, was not subject to the MHRA. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the MHRA and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD) were not "complementary or parallel" due to differing burdens of proof, thus imposing an impermissible unilateral burden on the KCATA.

Employment Law Civil Litigation