Judges: CHRIS KOSTER, Attorney General
Filed Date: 4/22/2010
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Dear Mr. Rebman:
You pose two alternative questions relating to the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Chapter
You asked:
Does the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), Chapter
213 , RSMo, prohibit coercion, intimidation, threats, harassment, and interference in the exercise and enjoyment of the right to fair housing as guaranteed by that Act? Or, stated another way, does the MHRA prohibit acts of coercion, mtimidation, and harassment based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, or familial status taken against a person who is simply living peacefully in his or her house?
Before addressing your questions, we note that despite the differences in wording between the MHRA and federal law, Missouri courts have generally followed federal precedent. Indeed, the rule in Missouri is that courts are to follow the interpretation of the federal anti-discrimination laws except where the MHRA language calls for a different result: *Page 2
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. . . . 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 ofUniv. of Mo.,
213 S.W.3d 101 ,112-13 (Mo.App. 2006) (discussing that MHRA federal Title VII 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.
Dougherty v. City of Maryland Heights,
The federal Act that you reference in your inquiry provides:
It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his having aided or encouraged any other person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by section 3603, 3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title.
The MHRA does not have a parallel provision. It does, however, reach the approximately same result by other means.
Section
(1) To aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the commission of acts prohibited under this chapter or to attempt to do so;
(2) To retaliate or discriminate in any manner against any other person because such person has opposed any practice prohibited by this chapter . . . [or]
. . . .
(4) To discriminate in any manner against any other person because of such person's association with any person protected by this chapter.
"Discrimination" is defined in the MHRA as "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" §
These provisions of the MHRA effectively parallel
*Page 1Very truly yours
_________________________ CHRIS KOSTER Attorney General