Opinion ID: 1439056
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Analysis for MHRA Claims

Text: In deciding a case under the MHRA, appellate courts are guided by both Missouri law and federal employment discrimination caselaw that is consistent with Missouri law. See, e.g., Midstate Oil Co., Inc. v. Mo. Comm'n on Human Rights, 679 S.W.2d 842, 845-46 (Mo. banc 1984) (an MHRA case approving use of the burden-shifting model of proof outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800-01, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), used in federal discrimination claims); Medley v. Valentine Radford Communications, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Mo.App.2005) (applying federal disability caselaw in MHRA case); West v. Conopco Corp., 974 S.W.2d 554, 556-57 (Mo.App.1998) (considering federal age discrimination cases in MHRA age discrimination case). Missouri's discrimination safeguards under the MHRA, however, are not identical to the federal standards and can offer greater discrimination protection. See, e.g., Brady v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 213 S.W.3d 101, 112-13 (Mo. App.2006) (discussing that MHRA & federal Title VII [5] are coextensive, but not identical, acts and MHRA is in some ways broader than Title VII, and in other ways is more restrictive). If the wording in the MHRA is clear and unambiguous, then federal caselaw which is contrary to the plain meaning of the MHRA is not binding. Id. at 113. Daugherty brought his claim under section 213.055, the section of the MHRA that prohibits employers from engaging in discriminatory employment practices, including wrongful termination. The MHRA defines discrimination to include  any unfair treatment based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment, disability, or familial status as it relates to housing. Section 213.010(5) (emphasis added). Nothing in this statutory language of the MHRA requires a plaintiff to prove that discrimination was a substantial or determining factor in an employment decision; if consideration of age, disability, or other protected characteristics contributed to the unfair treatment, that is sufficient. See McBryde v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 207 S.W.3d 162, 170 (Mo.App.2006). Past MHRA cases have followed a pattern of analysis articulated by the federal courts. [6] But this Court's 2003 decision holding that jury trials are available under the MHRA, [7] followed by the adoption of a pattern verdict-directing instruction for MHRA employment discrimination claimsMAI 31.24in 2005, signals an opportunity to review the analysis applied in MHRA cases. Missouri employment discrimination law in a post-MAI 31.24 environment should more closely reflect the plain language of the MHRA and the standards set forth in MAI 31.24 and rely less on analysis developed through federal caselaw.