HCS HB 2460 -- MISSOURI HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

SPONSOR:  Hobbs (Emery)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on
Conservation and Natural Resources by a vote of 7 to 4.

This substitute changes the laws regarding the Missouri Human
Rights Act.  In its main provisions, the substitute:

(1)  Revises the definition of "discrimination" to an adverse
action in the case of employment, or unjust treatment in the case
of housing, that is based on race, color, religion, national
origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment,
disability, or familial status as it relates to housing;

(2)  Removes any person directly acting in the interest of an
employer from the definition of "employer";

(3)  Specifies that it is an unlawful employment practice when
race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, or
disability of any individual is a factor motivating the
employer's decision to fail or refuse to hire or otherwise limit
the individual's employment and for an employer, in an employment
context, or for a person, in a housing or real estate context, to
engage in an adverse action motivated by race, color, religion,
national origin, ancestry, sex, or age;

(4)  Allows the Commission on Human Rights to assess a civil
penalty of up to $3,000, increased from $2,000, if the respondent
has not been convicted of a violation in the preceding five
years; a civil penalty of up to $7,000, increased from $5,000, if
the respondent has been convicted of a violation in the preceding
five years; and a civil penalty of up to $15,000, increased from
$10,000, if the respondent has been convicted of two or more
violations in the preceding seven years;

(5)  Prohibits courts from awarding punitive damages to the
plaintiff if the defendant is a state governmental agency or
corporation, including public school districts and political
subdivisions; and

(6)  Rejects and abrogates the holdings in Daugherty v. City of
Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. 2007), Cooper v. Albacore
Holdings, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 238 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006), and McBryde
v. Ritenour School District, 207 S.W.3d 162 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006),
and all cases citing, interpreting, applying, or following these
cases as they pertain to the discrimination standard, unlawful
employment practices, and unlawful discriminatory practices in
Section 213.070, RSMo.

FISCAL NOTE:  No impact on state funds in FY 2009, FY 2010, and
FY 2011.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that the bill will make state law
consistent with federal law regarding agent liability for human
rights issues.  Currently, Missouri is the only state that allows
a defendant to collect punitive damages in discrimination cases.
The bill will eliminate this provision in state law and will
address concerns from the business community and the state's
universities and educational institutions.

Testifying for the bill were Representatives Emery and Jones
(89); Tom Mickus, Mickus, Goldman, O'Toole Law Firm; Missouri
United School Insurance Council; and Penney Rector, School
Administrators Coalition.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that they are concerned
that the bill requires a higher standard than Title VII.
Eliminating punitive damages as a remedy for discrimination cases
leaves public agencies and employers unaccountable for their
employees' bad behavior.

Testifying against the bill was Missouri Commission on Human
Rights.

Missouri House of Representatives
94th General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session
Last Updated October 15, 2008 at 3:12 pm