Opinion ID: 181752
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Missouri Human Rights Act

Text: Like the ADEA, the MHRA generally prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their age. [9] Mo. Ann. Stat. § 213.055(1). The standard for proving age discrimination under the MHRA, however, is less demanding than the ADEA's standard. Baker, 581 F.3d at 689-90. Whereas Gross requires plaintiffs to prove that their age was the but for cause of an adverse employment action to establish age discrimination under the ADEA, the MHRA only requires plaintiffs to prove that their age was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action. Daugherty v. City of Md. Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814, 820 (Mo.2007). Under the MHRA's contributing factor standard, Clark is not required to prove that his age was the determining factor or even a substantial factor in Matthews's decisions to keep him off the Purple Team and to ultimately terminate him. All Clark must prove is that his age played a part in producing these decisions. Williams v. Trans States Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 854, 867 (Mo.Ct.App.2009) (quoting McBryde v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 207 S.W.3d 162, 170 (Mo.Ct.App.2006)). Thus, the difference between the ADEA and the MHRA is that the former requires that age must have been the reason for the adverse employment action, while the latter merely requires that age was a reason for the action. We are unsure whether a Missouri court would find that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Clark's age was a contributing factor in his termination or the rejection of his request to join the Purple Team. The Missouri courts developed the contributing-factor standard only recently. Although it is clear that the MHRA standard is less demanding than the ADEA standard, the Missouri courts have had few opportunities to apply the standard in the context of age-discrimination claims. Thus, since the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1), we think the prudent decision in this case is to let the Missouri courts decide the matter. See EEOC v. Con-Way Freight, Inc., 622 F.3d 933, 938 (8th Cir.2010); Gregory v. Dillard's, Inc., 565 F.3d 464, 477 (8th Cir. 2009); Birchem v. Knights of Columbus, 116 F.3d 310, 314 (8th Cir.1997).