Is Missouri An Employee-Friendly State—Absolutely!
| Posted in Legal on May 3, 2011 by |
0 Comments |
Has a current or former employee ever filed a discrimination claim against your organization with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights? How about a retaliation claim? Or a harassment claim? If you answered “no” to these questions then it may come as a surprise to you that Missouri, widely considered a conservative state, is an “employee-friendly” place to be. Despite efforts to change the tide, it appears that this fact of life for employers is not going to change, at least not anytime soon.
On April 29, 2011, Governor Jay Nixon vetoed a bill that would have drastically changed the landscape of employment law in the State of Missouri, making the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) more business/employer-friendly and, in many respects, in line with the federal anti-discrimination laws. To fully understand the significance of Nixon’s veto and how friendly the current law is to employees, I encourage you to continue reading about some of the ways the law would have changed.
First, the new law would have eliminated individual liability in cases arising under the MHRA. With the governor’s veto of the bill, Missouri remains one of the few states where individuals can be held liable in discrimination cases. In other words, a discharged employee who believes he was discriminated against (or retaliated against) can sue not only his former employer but also the person who made the decision to terminate his employment and, in reality, anyone else in the organization who he believes influenced the decision. Indeed, under the current law, the employee can sue anyone who acts directly “in the interest of the employer,” including but not limited to persons who sit on the board of directors of a non-profit organization. It is noteworthy that the federal anti-discrimination laws (e.g., Title VII, ADA, and ADEA) do not recognize individual liability in such cases.
In addition, the new law would have limited the amount of damages a jury could award against an employer, whether a for-profit or non-profit organization. Had the bill passed, damages awarded against employers were limited to back pay (lost wages), interest on back pay, and $50,000 for employers with between 5 and 100 employees, $100,000 for employers with between 100 and 200 employees, $200,000 for employers with between 200 and 500 employees, or $300,000 for employers with more than 500 employees. In addition, under the proposed law, a prevailing party in a MHRA case would not be entitled to recover his/her attorney’s fees. As it stands now, and for the near future, damages are not capped in any way. This means employers who are faced with discrimination claims have a virtual limitless exposure risk. Indeed, if an employer loses a discrimination case, it must pay for the plaintiff/employee’s attorney’s fees.
The new law would have also changed the standard of proof required for an employee to prevail in a discrimination case. Currently, under the MHRA, a practice is unlawful when the protected trait (race, age, disability, etc.) is a contributing factor in the job-related decision (e.g., the decision to terminate an employee’s employment). The new law would have changed the standard to a “motivating factor” standard. Although changing the standard from “contributing” to “motivating” factor may seem like merely one of semantics, it is widely recognized by Missouri courts that the “contributing factor” standard is an easier one for employees/plaintiffs to meet thus increasing the likelihood that they will get their case to trial and win.
Finally, the new law would have instructed Missouri courts to interpret the MHRA in a manner consistent with the federal anti-discrimination laws and to rely heavily on federal court decisions (which are more employer-friendly) interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act when deciding cases under the MHRA. Currently, Missouri courts may, but are not required to, look to federal court decisions for guidance.
When Governor Nixon vetoed the bill, he stated that he “would not cede one inch of ground” practically eliminating any chance of compromise in the future. To many, the Governor’s stance came as no surprise. Indeed, legislators in Jefferson City have introduced bills to reform the Missouri Human Rights Act several times before to no avail. So, for the time being and for the immediate future, we live in an employee-friendly state and, most certainly, in a place where employers, supervisors and managers must be aware of their obligations under the Missouri Human Rights Act.
If you have any questions regarding this article, or any other employment law matter, please feel free to contact me at (314) 588-7000 or rkorn@foxgalvin.com.
Richard Korn is a partner at the law firm of Fox Galvin, LLC, a boutique litigation law firm located in downtown St. Louis. For more information on Richard’s practice, please feel free to visit Fox Galvin’s website at foxgalvin.com. Contact Richard at rkorn@foxgalvin.com or (314)588-7000.
Tags:
Employment Law Missouri Commission on Human Rights Missouri Human Rights Act MHRA Civil Rights Act Americans with Disabilities Act Age Discrimination Nonprofit Richard Korn
Submit A Comment
|
