HCS HB 799 -- UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES IN EMPLOYMENT

SPONSOR:  Fisher, 125 (Jones, 89)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Special Committee on
Workforce Development and Workplace Safety by a vote of 7 to 5.

This substitute changes the laws regarding unlawful
discriminatory practices in employment.  In its main provisions,
the substitute:

(1)  Adds the definition of "because" or "because of" as it
relates to a decision or action to be the protected criterion was
the motivating factor;

(2)  Revises the definition of "employer" by specifying that an
employer is a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce
who has six or more employees for each working day in each of 20
or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.  The
federal government, an Indian tribe, and private membership
clubs, excluding labor organizations, are not considered
employers covered under the Missouri Human Rights Law;

(3)  Specifies that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for
an employer to retaliate or discriminate in any manner against an
employee because the employee refused to violate the law at the
request of someone employed by the employer with supervisory
authority over the employee or because the employee reported a
violation of the law to an authority of the federal, state, or
local government;

(4)  Specifies that remedies for all unlawful employment
practices articulated in the Missouri Human Rights Law are
exclusive and abrogates any common law causes of action to the
contrary;

(5)  Allows any party to demand a trial by jury after notice by
the Missouri Commission on Human Rights within the Department of
Labor and Industrial Relations of the right to bring a civil
action against the respondent named in a complaint;

(6)  Specifies that the amount of all damages awarded cannot
exceed the amount of the actual back pay plus interest and
punitive damages of up to $50,000 in the case of an employer with
six to 100 employees; up to $100,000 for an employer with 101 to
200 employees; up to $200,000 for an employer with 201 to 500
employees; and up to $300,000 for an employer with more than 500
employees.  The maximum award amounts do not apply to unlawful
discrimination actions regarding housing, commercial real estate
loans, and selling or renting by real estate agencies;

(7)  Requires the plaintiff to prove the protected criterion was
the motivating factor in the alleged unlawful decision or action
in any employment-related civil action brought under the Missouri
Human Rights Law;

(8)  Prohibits punitive damages from being awarded against the
state or any of its political subdivisions in any employment-
related civil action brought under the Missouri Human Rights Law;

(9)  Requires the plaintiff in any civil action for damages for
exercising his or her rights under the Workers' Compensation Law
that resulted in the discharge of or discrimination against the
employee to prove the employer's decision or action was motivated
exclusively by the employee exercising his or her rights under
the Workers' Compensation Law; and

(10)  Specifies that the amount of compensatory damages and
punitive damages awarded in any action brought by an employee for
discharge or discrimination against an employer or former
employer cannot exceed $50,000 for an employer with fewer than
101 employees; $100,000 for an employer with 101 to 200
employees; $200,000 for an employer with 201 to 500 employees;
and $300,000 for an employer with more than 500 employees.
Compensatory damages do not include back pay or interest on back
pay.

FISCAL NOTE:  No impact on state funds in FY 2010, FY 2011, and
FY 2012.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that the bill creates an exception to
at-will employment by providing whistleblowers with protection
from employer retaliation.  Punitive damages awarded against a
public entity for discharging or discriminating against an
employee punishes taxpayers.  Capping compensatory and punitive
damages against a private employer guilty of discharging or
discriminating against an employee is consistent with federal
law.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Jones (89);
Associated Industries of Missouri; William Lawson; Missouri
Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Missouri Retailers Association;
and Tom Rackers.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that abrogating common
law is bad public policy.  Capping punitive damages removes a key
deterrent from the law.  Supervisors working in the public sector
should be subject to litigation for discriminatory management
practices.  Suing the supervisor aids in obtaining the truth
about the employer's discriminatory practices.

Testifying against the bill were Missouri AFL-CIO; Missouri Human
Rights Commission, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations;
Paraquad; United Steel Workers District 11; American Civil
Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri; Missouri Association for
Social Welfare; and Ken Vuylsteke, Missouri Association of Trial
Attorneys.

Missouri House of Representatives
95th General Assembly, 1st Regular Session
Last Updated November 17, 2009 at 9:25 am