Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Alisa Warren, and Armstrong Teasdale, LLP 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
missouri-commission-on-human-rights-alisa-warren-and-armstrong-teasdale-llp
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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.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 Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Alisa Warren, and Armstrong Teasdale, LLP

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Jim Swoboda sought a writ of mandamus against the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, after the Commission dismissed his Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) claim against Armstrong for lack of an employer-employee relationship. The circuit court granted the writ, ordering the Commission to rescind its dismissal, accept the charge, and investigate. The appellate court affirmed the order to rescind the dismissal, holding that a direct employer-employee relationship is not required for an aiding and abetting claim under the MHRA. However, it reversed the order to investigate, directing the Commission to issue a right-to-sue letter instead, as more than 180 days had passed, divesting the Commission of jurisdiction to investigate.