We address issues, cases and matters of statutory and regulatory compliance of employment law that can impact a business' growth and profitability.
The Missouri Supreme Court finally weighed in on a novel issue regarding the ability of an employee to sue his employer’s attorneys under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) for allegedly “aiding and abetting” discrimination.
On March 1, 2022, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a sex discrimination suit under the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”). See Gill v. City of St. Peters, No. ED109658 (Mo. App. E.D. Mar. 1, 2022).
In a case of first impression, the Missouri Court of Appeals held that sexual stereotyping can support an inference that discrimination on the basis of “sex” occurred in the workplace. Lampley and Frost v. MCHR, Case No. WD80288 (Mo.App. W.D. 2017). The Appellate Court maintained that sexual orientation is not a “protected-class” under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), but held that sex-based stereotyping is a prohibited employment practice in Missouri and, therefore, can support an inference of unlawful sex discrimination.
In a case straight from “Bad Grandpa” the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals further confirmed an employer’s obligation to provide a work environment free of all forms of discrimination and harassment. In Chavonya Watson v. Heartland Health Laboratories, the 8th Circuit “assumed” for sake of analysis that an employer can be held liable under the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) for harassment by a third-party who is not an employee. Ultimately, however, the 8th Circuit found that the incidents of harassments did not rise to the level of “hostile work environment” and affirmed summary judgment on behalf of the employer.