Missouri Human Rights Act: Disability Discrimination Claims

The MHRA is not the same as the ADA, and the differences matter. The MHRA reaches smaller employers than the federal law, runs through a different agency on a different timeline, and — after the 2017 reforms in Senate Bill 43 — applies a higher causation standard and caps the damages a plaintiff can recover. A worker often has claims under both laws at once, but each must be evaluated on its own terms.

Who and what does the MHRA cover?

The MHRA's unlawful employment practices are set out in RSMo § 213.055. It prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual in hiring, firing, compensation, or the terms and conditions of employment because of a protected characteristic. Disability is one of those protected categories, alongside race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, and age.

A defining feature of the MHRA is its employer-size threshold. The Act covers Missouri employers with six or more employees — far lower than the federal ADA's threshold of 15. This is one of the most important practical gaps between the two laws:

• A small Missouri business with, say, eight employees is generally too small for the federal ADA but is covered by the MHRA.
• For those smaller employers, the MHRA may be the only disability-discrimination statute that applies.

The MHRA protects a person with a disability who can, with or without reasonable accommodation, perform the essential functions of the job. An employer covered by the MHRA generally must consider reasonable accommodation of a known disability and may not take adverse action against a qualified worker because of that disability.

What counts as disability discrimination?

Disability discrimination under the MHRA generally takes two forms.

Adverse action because of disability

The first is an adverse employment action — termination, demotion, denial of promotion, discipline, or a cut in pay or hours — taken because of the employee's disability. Discrimination is usually proved through circumstantial evidence such as timing, shifting explanations, or differential treatment of comparable non-disabled workers.

Failure to accommodate

The second is failure to accommodate. When an employee with a disability needs a change to the job or workplace to perform essential functions — a modified schedule, assistive equipment, leave, or reassignment to a vacant position — the employer is generally expected to consider a reasonable accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. A flat refusal to engage with an accommodation request, rather than a good-faith discussion of options, is a common source of liability. The employer need not remove an essential job function or grant the precise accommodation requested when an effective alternative exists.

The "motivating factor" standard after SB 43

How strong must the link between the disability and the adverse action be? That question was rewritten by the 2017 Senate Bill 43 amendments, which significantly changed MHRA litigation.

Before 2017, Missouri courts applied a plaintiff-friendly "contributing factor" test — the disability needed only to contribute to the decision. SB 43 raised the bar to a "motivating factor" standard. Under the current law, a plaintiff must show that the disability actually played a role in and had a determinative influence on the adverse decision. This is a meaningfully harder showing than the old rule and brings the MHRA closer to (though not identical to) federal analysis. SB 43 also made other structural changes, but the headline takeaways for a disability claim are the tougher motivating factor standard and the damage caps discussed below.

The MCHR charge process and right-to-sue letter

A worker generally cannot go straight to court under the MHRA. The Act requires an administrative step first.

1. File a charge with the MCHR. The employee files a verified charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. Because many situations also violate federal law, charges are frequently dual-filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under a work-sharing arrangement, but the MHRA claim itself lives with the MCHR.

2. Agency review. The MCHR may investigate, attempt conciliation, or take other action.

3. Obtain a right-to-sue letter. To pursue an MHRA claim in court, the claimant generally must request and receive a right-to-sue letter from the MCHR. That letter authorizes a private lawsuit; filing suit without exhausting this process can result in dismissal.

Deadlines

MHRA deadlines are short and unforgiving. A charge generally must be filed with the MCHR within a limited window (commonly described as 180 days from the alleged discriminatory act). After a right-to-sue letter issues, the lawsuit must be filed within the period the statute and letter specify. The federal EEOC timeline runs separately, so a worker with both state and federal claims must track two sets of dates. Missing a deadline can permanently bar a claim, so the exact periods should be confirmed as early as possible.

Remedies and damage caps

A successful MHRA disability claim can produce several kinds of relief, but SB 43 placed firm ceilings on some of them.

• Back pay and front pay. A prevailing plaintiff may recover lost wages and benefits, which generally fall outside the statutory caps.
• Compensatory and punitive damages. Damages for emotional distress and punitive damages are available in appropriate cases but are now subject to caps added by SB 43.
• Attorneys' fees and equitable relief. Courts may award reasonable attorneys' fees and order equitable remedies such as reinstatement.

The damage caps are tiered by the employer's size, with higher ceilings for larger employers. The practical effect is that two otherwise-identical claims can carry very different exposure depending on how many people the employer employs, so the applicable figure should be confirmed for any specific case.

How the MHRA relates to — but differs from — the federal ADA

The MHRA and the federal ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) are two separate laws. The ADA is federal, enforced through the EEOC; the MHRA is Missouri state law, enforced through the MCHR. A disabled Missouri worker frequently holds claims under both, but they should never be treated as interchangeable. Key contrasts:

• Employer size. The ADA covers employers with 15+ employees; the MHRA reaches down to 6+.
• Agency and procedure. Federal claims run through the EEOC; MHRA claims run through the MCHR and require a Missouri right-to-sue letter.
• Causation standard. The MHRA now uses the "motivating factor" test set by SB 43; the federal ADA applies its own standards.
• Damages. The MHRA's remedies are subject to Missouri's SB 43 caps, which are distinct from federal damage limits.

The practical upshot: evaluate the federal and state claims independently, because coverage, deadlines, standards, and caps do not line up.

Frequently Asked Questions