Employment Discrimination Claims in Missouri (MHRA and Federal Law)

The two systems run on separate tracks with different agencies, deadlines, and — since Missouri's 2017 amendments — different legal standards. This guide explains who the MHRA covers, what the 2017 amendments (SB 43) changed (the "motivating factor" standard, damage caps, the business-judgment rule, and limits on suing supervisors), how the federal laws — Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA — differ, the kinds of discrimination the law recognizes, and the path from charge to lawsuit. Because both clocks start the moment you are harmed, these deadlines are often the difference between a viable claim and one barred before you speak to a lawyer.

Who does the Missouri Human Rights Act cover?

The MHRA, RSMo Chapter 213, is Missouri's primary employment-discrimination statute, enforced administratively by the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) and ultimately in Missouri state courts.

Protected classes. Under RSMo § 213.055, it is an unlawful employment practice for a covered employer to fail or refuse to hire, to discharge, or otherwise to discriminate against an individual in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that individual's:

• Race
• Color
• Religion
• National origin
• Sex
• Ancestry
• Age
• Disability

The statute also bars classifying or segregating employees so as to deprive them of opportunities because of a protected characteristic.

The six-employee threshold. A key feature of the MHRA is its coverage of small employers. The Act generally defines a covered "employer" as a person in an industry affecting commerce with six or more employees — a lower threshold than Title VII (15 employees) or the federal age law (20 employees). So a Missouri worker at a small company may have a state claim even when no federal claim exists. Some entities, such as certain private membership clubs, are excluded, and the definition is technical, so coverage should be confirmed for any particular employer.

Age coverage. The MHRA protects against age discrimination, applying to workers within a defined age range (commonly described as roughly 40 to 69). Because the contours are statutory, treat the age boundaries as a rule to confirm.

What did the 2017 amendments (SB 43) change?

In 2017, the Missouri legislature passed Senate Bill 43, which substantially rewrote the MHRA and in several respects brought it closer to (and in some ways made it more employer-favorable than) federal law. Any Missouri claim that arose after August 28, 2017 is governed by the amended statute. The major changes were:

• The "motivating factor" causation standard. Before SB 43, Missouri applied a plaintiff-friendly "contributing factor" test — discrimination only had to be a contributing factor. SB 43 replaced that with the higher "motivating factor" standard, meaning the protected characteristic must have actually played a role in and had a determinative influence on the adverse decision. This is a meaningfully harder standard for employees to meet.
• Statutory damage caps. SB 43 capped the sum of compensatory and punitive damages, tied to the size of the employer, in a tiered structure broadly modeled on the federal Title VII caps. Back pay is generally treated separately. Because the figures and tiers are set by statute, confirm the current numbers rather than assuming them.
• The business-judgment rule. The amendments codified a business-judgment instruction, reminding juries that an employer may make decisions for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all — so long as the decision is not because of a protected trait.
• Limited individual liability. Before SB 43, supervisors could sometimes be sued personally under the MHRA. The amendments narrowed "employer" to exclude individual employees, so in most cases you can no longer hold a supervisor or co-worker personally liable — the claim runs against the employing entity.

The practical takeaway: a post-2017 MHRA claim is governed by a different and generally tougher framework than older Missouri cases, so be cautious relying on pre-2017 decisions.

What kinds of discrimination does the law recognize?

Both Missouri and federal law recognize several distinct theories, and which one fits your situation shapes what you must prove.

• Disparate treatment. Intentional discrimination — being treated worse because of a protected trait. Proof can be direct (a discriminatory remark tied to the decision) or circumstantial (a comparator outside your class treated more favorably for the same conduct).
• Disparate impact. A facially neutral policy that disproportionately harms a protected group, even without intent — for instance, a physical test that screens out women at a much higher rate and is not job-related. These usually require statistical evidence.
• Retaliation. It is unlawful to punish an employee for engaging in protected activity — complaining about discrimination, filing a charge, or participating in an investigation. It can survive even when the underlying discrimination claim does not, because the law protects the act of complaining in good faith.
• Hostile work environment (harassment). Harassment based on a protected trait that is severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment. A single offhand comment usually is not enough; a pattern of serious conduct can be.
• Failure to accommodate. For disability and religion, the employer may have a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

Reasonable accommodation and disability

For disability claims, both the MHRA and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) generally require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation — a modification that lets a qualified individual perform the essential functions of the position, such as a modified schedule, assistive equipment, or reassignment to a vacant role. The employer and employee are expected to engage in an interactive process to identify a workable accommodation. An employer can refuse only if it would cause an undue hardship — significant difficulty or expense — given its size and resources.

Religious accommodation works similarly: an employer must reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious practices (such as scheduling around a Sabbath) unless that imposes an undue hardship.

How does federal law differ from the MHRA?

The federal anti-discrimination laws operate independently of the MHRA, through a separate agency (the EEOC) and on a different timeline. The main federal statutes are:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, covering employers with 15 or more employees. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that "sex" includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Prohibits disability discrimination and requires reasonable accommodation; it also covers employers with 15 or more employees.
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Protects workers age 40 and older and covers employers with 20 or more employees.

Several practical differences separate the state and federal systems:

• Coverage threshold. The MHRA reaches employers with 6+ employees; the federal laws start at 15 (Title VII and the ADA) or 20 (the ADEA). A worker at a ten-person shop may have only a state claim.
• Agency and deadline. A Missouri MCHR charge is generally due within 180 days; an EEOC charge in Missouri within 300 days (below).
• Causation standard. Post-SB 43, Missouri uses the "motivating factor" standard. Federal standards vary — for example, the ADEA generally requires that age be the "but-for" cause — so the same facts can be analyzed differently under each law.
• Damage caps. Both Title VII and the post-2017 MHRA cap combined compensatory and punitive damages by employer size; the specific figures differ and should be confirmed.

Because of these differences, many employees file a dual charge — one document cross-filed with both the MCHR and the EEOC — to preserve rights under both systems. The two agencies have a work-sharing arrangement allowing a single filing to count for both, but confirm cross-filing rather than assume it.

What is the deadline to file a charge?

This is where claims are most often lost, so treat both clocks as urgent.

• Missouri (MCHR): generally 180 days. To pursue an MHRA claim, you generally must file a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights within 180 days of the alleged unlawful act. Missing this deadline typically bars the state claim.
• Federal (EEOC): generally 300 days in Missouri. A charge with the EEOC is generally due within 180 days, but that period extends to 300 days in a "deferral" state — one that has its own anti-discrimination agency, which Missouri does through the MCHR. So a federal charge in Missouri is generally subject to the 300-day deadline.

The difference matters: an employee who lets the 180-day state window close may still be within the 300-day federal window. Because exceptions and tolling rules exist (for example, the "continuing violation" doctrine for ongoing harassment), do not assume a missed deadline is fatal — but also do not gamble on an exception. File early.

You generally cannot file an MHRA lawsuit until you have filed your charge and obtained a right-to-sue letter from the MCHR. The charge is a prerequisite — skipping it usually defeats the lawsuit regardless of the facts.

A worked example: same facts, two tracks

Consider Dana, who works for a Missouri company with twelve employees. After Dana turns 55, a new manager repeatedly says the team needs "fresh, younger energy," passes Dana over for a promotion given to a 32-year-old with less experience, then terminates Dana three weeks after Dana complains in writing about the age remarks.

• MHRA (state). The employer has 6+ employees, so the MHRA applies. Dana has a potential age discrimination claim and a separate retaliation claim (the firing came shortly after the complaint). Under SB 43, Dana must show age was a motivating factor, and must file with the MCHR within 180 days.
• Federal (ADEA). The ADEA covers employers with 20 or more employees. Because Dana's employer has only twelve, there is likely no ADEA claim — federal age law does not reach an employer this small. This is exactly the gap the MHRA's lower threshold fills.

Now change one fact: the employer has 40 employees. Now both the MHRA and the ADEA apply, and Dana would likely cross-file with the MCHR and the EEOC, watching the 180-day state and 300-day federal clocks. Under the ADEA, Dana would generally have to prove age was the but-for cause; under the MHRA, the motivating factor. Same conduct, two frameworks.

What is the step-by-step path from charge to lawsuit?

A Missouri discrimination case generally follows a recognizable sequence. The steps differ slightly between the MCHR and the EEOC, but the arc is the same.

1. The adverse action. The clock starts at the discriminatory act — a firing, demotion, failure to hire, or a culminating act of harassment. Document dates, witnesses, and what was said while it is fresh.
2. File the charge. File a written charge of discrimination with the MCHR (within ~180 days) and/or the EEOC (within ~300 days). Many Missourians cross-file so a single charge preserves both state and federal rights. The charge names the employer, identifies the protected basis, and describes the conduct.
3. Notice and response. The agency notifies the employer, which files a written position statement responding to the allegations.
4. Investigation or mediation. The agency may investigate and frequently offers voluntary mediation to resolve the dispute early. Many cases settle here.
5. Determination and the right-to-sue letter. The agency issues a determination and a right-to-sue letter, which generally authorizes you to file suit and usually starts a short, strict deadline to do so.
6. File the lawsuit. You file your MHRA suit in Missouri state court within the deadline that runs after the right-to-sue letter (the MHRA has its own statutory clock — confirm it). A federal Title VII/ADA/ADEA suit is generally filed within 90 days of the EEOC's right-to-sue notice.
7. Litigation. The case proceeds through pleadings, discovery, possible summary judgment, and, if it does not settle, trial.

The deadlines that follow the right-to-sue letter are short — often days, not months — so the moment that letter arrives, the clock to file suit is already running.

What remedies are available?

If a claim succeeds, the relief is designed to make the employee whole and deter future violations. Depending on the statute and facts, remedies can include:

• Back pay. Lost wages and benefits from the adverse action through judgment.
• Front pay or reinstatement. A return to the job or, where impractical, an award covering future lost earnings for a reasonable period.
• Compensatory damages. For emotional distress and other out-of-pocket harm.
• Punitive damages. For especially egregious or malicious conduct, damages meant to punish and deter — limited by the statutory caps.
• Attorneys' fees and costs. A prevailing employee can often recover reasonable fees, which makes representation feasible.
• Injunctive or equitable relief. Orders requiring the employer to change a policy or provide an accommodation.

Remember that under the post-2017 MHRA — and under Title VII — the combined compensatory and punitive damages are subject to caps tied to employer size, while back pay is generally handled separately. Because the figures are statutory, the available recovery should be evaluated against current law and the employer's headcount.

When should you talk to a Missouri employment attorney?

Because the deadlines are short and the post-2017 standards technical, it is worth getting advice early if any of the following apply:

• You were fired, demoted, denied a promotion, or harassed and believe a protected characteristic was the reason.
• You were punished after complaining about discrimination or participating in an investigation.
• You requested a disability or religious accommodation and it was refused without a genuine interactive process.
• You have received a right-to-sue letter — the deadline to file suit may already be running.
• You are unsure whether your employer is large enough to be covered, or whether to file with the MCHR, the EEOC, or both.

An attorney can confirm coverage, preserve both deadlines, evaluate the claim under the motivating-factor standard, and identify the strongest theory — often within a short window.

Frequently Asked Questions