Opinion ID: 2286987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The MHRA

Text: The MHRA protects important societal interests by prohibiting unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, color, religion, national original, sex, ancestry, age, or disability. State ex rel. Dean v. Cunningham, 182 S.W.3d 561, 565 (Mo. banc 2006). Specifically, § 213.055 is a remedial prohibition against discrimination in the employment context. The section provides: 1. It shall be an unlawful employment practice: (1) For an employer, because of the race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability of any individual: (a) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability; (b) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or his employment applicants in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status and an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability[.] § 213.055.1 (emphasis added). The MHRA defines employer to include the state, or any political or civil subdivision thereof.... Section 213.010(7). The City has conceded that it is an employer covered under the MHRA. The MHRA does not define employee or employment applicant. The City argues that municipal judges are public officials and are not employees or employment applicants within the protection of the MHRA, urging that public officials should be viewed as similar to independent contractors.