Section 213
- Citation
- Section 213
- Parent Document
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 2018-02-27
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6241359/vermett-v-state/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (39)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Vermett v. State, 544 S.W.3d 294 (2018)
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
- Section 213
Full Text
582 charsBecause of the significant inconsistencies in Ms. Vermett's testimony, the fact that Mrs. Henderson clearly would have required a wheelchair ramp at any apartment Respondents would have rented, Mrs. Henderson's February and March 2010 letters formally requesting a ramp be built to Building 1915 at Respondents' expense, and because Appellants made no actual attempt to accommodate Respondents, we find that the MCHR's conclusion that Appellants' proposed non-discriminatory reason (that Unit 1915C was unavailable) was pretextual is supported by competent and substantial evidence.