Employment Law

Usually, yes. Missouri is an at-will employment state. Absent a contract for a fixed term, an employer may end the relationship at any time, for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason, and an employee may quit on the same terms. An unfair firing is not, by itself, an unlawful one.

The exceptions are what an employment lawyer looks for. A termination is unlawful when it is motivated by a protected characteristic under the Missouri Human Rights Act (RSMo Chapter 213) or federal law; when it retaliates against an employee for reporting unlawful conduct or refusing an illegal order, which Missouri codified in the Whistleblower’s Protection Act, RSMo § 285.575; when it punishes an employee for exercising workers’ compensation rights under RSMo § 287.780; or when it breaches a written employment contract.

The question we ask in the first conversation is not whether the firing was fair but whether the evidence connects it to one of those exceptions. Timing, comparators, written reasons that shift over time, and what was said in the meeting all matter.

Under the Missouri Human Rights Act, a complaint must be filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination, under RSMo § 213.075. The statute treats the deadline as jurisdictional: a late complaint deprives the Commission of authority to act, and the defense can be raised at any stage.

Federal claims under Title VII, the ADA and the ADEA go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and because Missouri has its own enforcement agency, the federal deadline is 300 days, as the Missouri Department of Labor explains. The two agencies share charges, but the safest course is to file within 180 days so both the state and federal claims are preserved.

After the charge is filed, the Commission investigates. If it has not finished within 180 days, the employee may request a right-to-sue letter, and under RSMo § 213.111 the lawsuit must then be filed within 90 days of that letter and in no event later than two years after the discriminatory act. Each of those deadlines is unforgiving.

Since the 2017 amendments to the Human Rights Act, an employee must show that the protected characteristic was “the motivating factor” in the adverse decision. RSMo § 213.010 defines that phrase to mean the characteristic “actually played a role in the adverse action or decision and had a determinative influence” on it.

That replaced an earlier standard under which it was enough that discrimination was a contributing factor. The current standard is closer to the federal test, and it means an employer with a documented, legitimate reason for the decision will often prevail unless the employee can show that reason is a pretext.

The Act applies to employers with six or more employees, a lower threshold than most federal statutes, which begin at fifteen (Title VII and the ADA) or twenty (the ADEA). Individual supervisors are no longer personally liable under the Act following the 2017 changes.

Missouri caps damages in Human Rights Act cases by the size of the employer. Under RSMo § 213.111, the combined total of compensatory and punitive damages, excluding back pay and interest on it, may not exceed $50,000 for employers with 6 to 100 employees, $100,000 for 101 to 200, $200,000 for 201 to 500, and $500,000 for more than 500.

Back pay, front pay and reinstatement are available in addition to the capped amounts, and a prevailing employee may recover reasonable attorney’s fees. Either party has the right to a jury trial.

Federal law carries its own caps, from $50,000 to $300,000 depending on employer size, and whether a claim is better pursued in state or federal court depends on the facts, the employer’s size, and where the evidence sits. That is a strategic decision made early.

Missouri’s Whistleblower’s Protection Act, RSMo § 285.575, protects an employee who has reported an unlawful act of the employer to the proper authorities, who has reported to the employer serious misconduct that violates a clear mandate of public policy, or who has refused to carry out a directive that would violate the law. An employer may not discharge that person because of their protected status.

The Act has limits. It excludes supervisory and managerial employees reporting matters within the scope of their own duties, and it does not protect a report made only to the person who committed the wrongdoing. The employee must show the protected status was the motivating factor in the discharge.

Remedies include back pay and reimbursement of medical bills directly related to the violation, and where the employer’s conduct was outrageous because of an evil motive or reckless indifference, proved by clear and convincing evidence, liquidated damages of double those amounts. The prevailing party may recover attorney’s fees. The Act is the exclusive remedy for these claims, which means the common-law wrongful discharge claims that preceded it no longer exist for the conduct it covers.

No. RSMo § 287.780 prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against an employee for exercising rights under the workers’ compensation law, where that exercise is the motivating factor in the decision. An employee who is fired in violation of the section has a civil action for damages.

The claim requires a link between the compensation claim and the adverse action. Timing is often the strongest evidence: a long-tenured employee let go weeks after reporting an injury, particularly where the stated reason is thin, presents a very different case from one terminated a year later after documented performance problems.

The retaliation claim is separate from the compensation claim itself. We do not handle workers’ compensation benefit claims and refer those to attorneys who do, but the retaliation claim is work we take on.

Missouri makes an employee’s earned wages due on the day of discharge. Under RSMo § 290.110, if the employee sends a written request for the unpaid wages and the employer does not pay within seven days, the employee’s wages continue to accrue at the same rate from the date of discharge until paid, for up to sixty days. The statute has a narrow exception for commissioned employees whose accounts require an audit.

The written request is the trigger, and it must be sent to the right place. We prepare it, calculate what is owed, and pursue the penalty when an employer ignores it.

Unpaid overtime is governed by RSMo § 290.505 and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, both of which require time and one-half for hours over forty in a workweek unless the employee is genuinely exempt. Misclassifying an hourly worker as a salaried manager, or an employee as an independent contractor, does not change that obligation.

$15.00 per hour as of January 1, 2026, under RSMo § 290.502, following the $13.75 rate that applied in 2025. Both figures came from Proposition A, approved by voters in November 2024.

The legislature altered that measure in 2025. House Bill 567, signed in July 2025 and effective August 28, 2025, repealed the paid sick leave requirement that Proposition A had created and removed the inflation-based annual adjustments that were to begin in 2027, as summarized by Littler Mendelson. The $15.00 rate itself was left in place.

Tipped employees may be paid half the minimum wage in cash so long as tips bring them to the full rate, and the federal minimum wage applies instead wherever it is higher. Retail and service businesses with annual gross sales under $500,000 are exempt from the state minimum but may still be covered by federal law.

Often, within limits. Missouri courts enforce non-compete agreements that are reasonable in duration and geography and that protect a legitimate interest of the employer, such as trade secrets or customer relationships. They will not enforce a covenant whose only purpose is to keep an employee from working, and they may narrow an overbroad one rather than throw it out.

Missouri has one statute on the subject. RSMo § 431.202 addresses covenants not to solicit or hire a former employer’s employees, and it makes such a covenant conclusively reasonable if it lasts no more than one year, except for clerical and secretarial staff. The statute expressly preserves an employee’s ability to seek and accept other employment immediately on leaving.

Customer non-solicitation and true non-competition covenants are judged under the common law. What matters is the wording, the consideration given, the employee’s actual role, and whether the employer has enforced similar agreements before. We review agreements before they are signed, negotiate their terms, and advise on what an employee can and cannot do after leaving.

Not before someone has read it. A severance agreement is a contract in which the employer pays something, usually a few weeks or months of salary, in exchange for the employee releasing every claim they have or might have. Once signed, a discrimination, retaliation or wage claim is almost always gone.

Several things are routinely negotiable: the amount, the payment schedule, whether the employer will contest unemployment, the reference it will give, the return of equipment, and the scope of any non-disparagement or confidentiality clause. Employees over forty are entitled under federal law to at least 21 days to consider a release of age claims and 7 days to revoke after signing; that time exists to be used.

We review the agreement, tell you whether you are giving up a claim of real value, and negotiate with the employer where that is worthwhile. Where the offer is fair and there is no claim, we tell you that too, and the review has cost you an hour.

Frequently, yes. Missouri denies benefits to an employee discharged for misconduct connected with work, which the statute defines narrowly, or who quit voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work or the employer. Being fired for poor performance, for a single mistake, or for not being a good fit is generally not misconduct.

Employers contest claims, and the Division of Employment Security decides them on a written record and, on appeal, a telephone hearing before a referee. The hearing is short, the rules of evidence are relaxed, and the employer usually has someone who has done it before. We prepare clients for those hearings and appear at them, and we watch for the ways an employer’s account of the separation in the unemployment file can be used later in a discrimination case.

Yes, from a corporate employer of any size above six. Missouri’s service letter statute, RSMo § 290.140, requires a corporation with seven or more employees to give a former employee who worked at least ninety days, on written request made within one year of the separation, a letter stating the nature and duration of the service and the true reason the employee left.

The employer has 45 days to respond. An employer that fails to issue the letter is liable for nominal and, on a showing of malice, punitive damages; an employer whose letter misstates the reason is liable for the actual damages that result. The letter is often the first document in a wrongful termination case, because an employer forced to commit to a reason in writing cannot later change it without explanation.

It depends on the matter. Contract and severance reviews are usually handled for a flat fee quoted in advance. Discrimination, retaliation and wage claims may be taken on a contingency fee, an hourly basis, or a combination, depending on the strength of the claim and the remedies available; several of the statutes described here allow a prevailing employee to recover attorney’s fees from the employer, which affects how a case can be structured.

Employer work is billed hourly or on a flat-fee basis for defined projects such as a handbook or a set of hiring documents. Every term is confirmed in a written engagement agreement before any work begins. The consultation itself is free and carries no obligation.