Missouri Commission on Human Rights Missouri Cases

Jim Swoboda filed a discrimination charge against the Law Firm with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Swoboda sought judicial review, and the circuit court issued a permanent writ of mandamus directing the Commission to accept and investigate the charge. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that Swoboda failed to establish a clear, unequivocal, specific right to mandamus relief because the question of whether the Missouri Human Rights Act requires an employment relationship for such claims was an issue of first impression.

Mary McClendon sued the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) for damages under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA), alleging aiding/abetting and retaliation. McClendon claimed the MCHR unlawfully delayed issuing a right-to-sue notice for her prior discrimination charge against her former employer. The trial court granted the MCHR's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that McClendon failed to allege facts showing the MCHR provided substantial encouragement for aiding/abetting or that its delay constituted an actionable adverse impact for retaliation, as her ability to pursue her original claims was ultimately preserved.

Barbara Vega sued the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, alleging the Commission engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices of aiding/abetting and retaliation by delaying the issuance of a right-to-sue notice on her prior discrimination charge against her former employer. The trial court granted the Commission's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Vega failed to state actionable claims for aiding/abetting and retaliation because the Commission's delay did not constitute substantial encouragement to her former employer nor an actionable adverse impact on Vega, as her ability to pursue a private action was ultimately preserved.