Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
Fact check: Would Missouri legislation allow discrimination, harassment, and assault?
Missouri Capitol Building, Jefferson City, Mo.
Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens (R) is considering whether to sign or veto legislation pertaining to employment discrimination.[1] In opposition to the bill, Missouri Faith Voices claimed that it would make Missouri “the first state in the nation to allow individuals to discriminate, harass and even assault others based on categories long protected that include not only religions but also gender, ethnicity, physical ability, age and national origin.”[2]
Is that accurate? Would the bill allow individuals to discriminate, harass, and assault others in the workplace?
No. Senate Bill 43, if enacted, would remove individual liability from supervisors and managers in discrimination complaints and raise the standard of proof necessary to prevail in such cases.[1] However, employment discrimination would still be illegal, and employees could sue employers for discrimination, harassment, and assault in the workplace. Supervisory personnel could be held criminally liable for harassment and assault.[3][4]
Background
Missouri Faith Voices describes itself as a group that "gathers and equips a diverse and non-partisan, state-wide network of congregations and faith based community organizations to positively impact issues affecting Missouri’s communities."[5]
SB 43 passed the Missouri Senate on March 2 with a party-line vote of 23 “yeas” from Republicans and nine “nays” from Democrats. On May 8, the House approved the bill on 98 “aye” votes (all by Republicans) to 30 “noes” from 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats.[1] Gov. Greitens has until July 14 to sign or veto the bill; if he takes no action, it will become law on August 28.[6]
The bill proposes several changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), which outlaws discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age (in employment only), and family status (in housing only). More specifically, employers cannot discriminate with respect to compensation, hiring, firing, and benefits, among other employment practices.[7]
Missouri Sen. Gary Romine (R-Farmington), sponsor of SB 43, said of his bill: “We want to make sure that this is a balance between the plaintiffs and the business owners and operators in our state," and that businesses “know the parameters are going to be that it has to be a serious accusation of any discrimination, of any kind, so the plaintiff has their day in court, as well as the businesses are being protected from frivolous lawsuits.”[8]
Amendments to MHRA
SB 43 would, in part, amend the state’s Human Rights Act by:[1]
- Removing individual liability from supervisors, managers, and other employees for discriminatory actions in the workplace acting under an employer. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in the 2009 case of Hill v. Ford Motor Co. that individuals employed in supervisory roles could be personally sued for alleged acts of discrimination and harassment. Prior to that ruling, only employers could be held liable for the actions of supervisory employees if the employer does not prevent and correct the discriminatory behavior.[9]
- Requiring employees (as plaintiffs) to prove that their race, religion, sex etc. was the “motivating factor” of an allegedly discriminatory employment decision. This would require the employee to prove that his or her protected classification actually played a determinative role in the employer’s adverse action or decision, according to the bill summary.[1] Under current law, juries must rule in favor of the employee if they conclude a protected category was a contributing factor in the adverse action or decision—a lower threshold of proof.[10]
- Allowing an employer (as defendant) to claim lack of timeliness as a complete defense (meaning the employer is no longer liable) if the employee does not file a complaint within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act.
- Allowing employers (as defendants) to request that the jury be instructed that it may not return a verdict in the employee’s favor based only on a disagreement with the employer’s action when that action is not deemed to be the result of discrimination.[11]
Criminal law
SB 43 would not impact Missouri’s other laws against harassment (defined as an act with the purpose of causing emotional distress) or assault (defined as knowingly or recklessly causing physical injury to another person).[12][13] Thus, supervisory personnel could still be held liable for harassment or assault under those statutes.
Missouri law also establishes enhanced penalties for harassment and assault when such are deemed “hate offenses,” meaning that the acts were motivated by “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability.”[14]
Conclusion
In opposition to proposed changes to Missouri’s Human Rights Act, Missouri Faith Voices said SB 43 would “allow individuals to discriminate, harass and even assault others based on categories long protected that include not only religions but also gender, ethnicity, physical ability, age and national origin.”[2]
If enacted, the legislation would remove individual liability from supervisors and managers in discrimination complaints and raise the standard of proof necessary to prevail in such cases. However, employees would still be able to sue employers for workplace discrimination, and supervisory personnel could still be criminally charged for harassment or assault.[3][4]
See also
- Missouri Anti-Discrimination in Employment Initiative (2018)
- Federal and state affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws
- Missouri General Assembly
Sources and Notes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Missouri Senate, “SB 43: Modifies the law relating to unlawful discrimination,” accessed June 1, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Springfield News-Leader, “Compassion hard to find in state legislature,” April 14, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Missouri Revised Statutes, "Section 565.090.1," accessed June 2, 2017 See also Section 565.091.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Missouri Revised Statutes, "Section 565.050.1," accessed June 2, 2017 See also Sections 565.052 and 565.054.
- ↑ Facebook, "Missouri Faith Voices: About," accessed June 9, 2017
- ↑ Missouri House of Representatives, “The Legislative Process in Missouri,” accessed June 1, 2017
- ↑ Missouri Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, “Discrimination,” accessed June 1, 2017
- ↑ Missourian, “Missouri lawmakers consider raising bar employees must meet to prove discrimination,” January 24, 2017
- ↑ Missouri Supreme Court, Hill v. Ford Motor Co., February 24, 2009
- ↑ Supreme Court of Missouri, "Order dated March 7, 2005, re: Revisions to MAI-Civil," March 7, 2005
- ↑ Lexology, “Missouri Legislature Passes Significant Changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act,” May 9, 2017
- ↑ Harassment in the first degree applies to actions with both the purpose and effect of causing emotional distress without good cause, whereas harassment in the second degree applies to actions with the purpose of causing emotional distress without good cause. Missouri Revised Statutes, "Section 565.090.1," accessed June 2, 2017 See also Section 565.091.
- ↑ Degree (first, second, or third) of assault is determined by a number of factors, including the severity of injury caused and whether the perpetrator committed the action knowingly, recklessly, or under the influence of sudden passion. Missouri Revised Statutes, "Section 565.050.1," accessed June 2, 2017 See also Sections 565.052 and 565.054.
- ↑ Missouri Revised Statutes, "Section 557.035.1," accessed June 2, 2017
Launched in October 2015 and active through October 2018, Fact Check by Ballotpedia examined claims made by elected officials, political appointees, and political candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. We evaluated claims made by politicians of all backgrounds and affiliations, subjecting them to the same objective and neutral examination process. As of 2025, Ballotpedia staff periodically review these articles to revaluate and reaffirm our conclusions. Please email us with questions, comments, or concerns about these articles. To learn more about fact-checking, click here.
Contact
More Fact Checks
October 30, 2018
August 24, 2018
|
|
