On June 30, 2017, the Missouri Governor signed Senate Bill 43 into law. The Bill implements significant changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act. The changes will be effective on August 28, 2017.
The changes include:
- “the motivating factor” decisional standard
- the federal burden shifting framework at the summary judgment stage of litigation
- prohibit MHRA claims against individual employees
- damages caps based on employer size
- Missouri Whistleblower Protection Act
Motivating factor. The new legislation will change the causation standard for employment discrimination claims in Missouri. Under the updated MHRA, individuals bringing claims of employment discrimination must prove that a protected class, such as race, gender, or age, was “the motivating factor” for an employer’s alleged adverse employment action. The new “motivating factor” standard replaces the current “contributing factor” standard.
Summary judgment. Under the existing version of the MHRA, summary judgment is rarely granted. Under the amendments, employers will have a better opportunity to obtain summary judgment.
Liability for Individual Supervisors. Plaintiffs will no longer be able to sue other employees in their individual capacities under the MHRA.
Caps on Damages. Damages awarded for employment claims under the MHRA may not exceed back pay and interest on that back pay, plus an additional amount of damages dependent upon the size of the company, as follows:
- $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
- $500,000 for employers with more than 500 employees.
A court may grant other relief, such as permanent or temporary injunctions, as the Court deems appropriate. Courts may also still award court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. A prevailing employer may be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees only upon a showing that the case was entirely without foundation.
Whistleblower Protection Act. Under the Act, it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge an individual who is a “protected person” because that person engaged in any of the protected activities referenced in the definition of “protected person.”