A petition filed in Cole County on Monday has put Missouri’s whistleblower statutes back in public view. The dispute involves the Secretary of State’s office, but the legal framework underneath it governs every workplace in the state, and it is considerably narrower than most employees assume.
The deadline is the first thing to check, not the last
A Missouri public employee who believes discipline followed a protected report has one year to file, whether the route is an administrative appeal to the Administrative Hearing Commission or a civil suit in circuit court. A discrimination-based retaliation claim under the Missouri Human Rights Act runs on a shorter clock: a verified complaint must reach the Missouri Commission on Human Rights within 180 days. Missing either date ends the claim, however strong the underlying facts.
Missouri does not have one whistleblower law. It has two principal ones, they cover different employers, and an employee who files under the wrong statute can lose a meritorious case on a threshold question unrelated to what happened at work. This week’s filing is a useful occasion to walk through the distinction, because the plaintiff is a public employee and the statute most people have heard of would not have covered him.
What was filed on Monday
According to reporting by The Associated Press, Nicholas La Strada, the former director of election integrity for the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, filed suit in Cole County Circuit Court on September 14 against Secretary of State Denny Hoskins. La Strada was hired in January 2025 and terminated effective May 1, 2026, having previously served fourteen years as the Pettis County clerk. Both men are Republicans, which removes the usual partisan frame and leaves the employment question standing on its own.
The petition alleges that La Strada was fired after raising concerns internally about several matters, including an alleged plan by staff to submit a fabricated whistleblower complaint about the statewide voter database, an alleged instruction to local officials to change a certified result in an April Marshall City Council race, and an alleged use of public funds to mail material opposing a St. Louis County ballot measure. A spokeswoman for the Secretary of State’s office said Hoskins would not comment on pending litigation involving a personnel matter.
These are allegations in a civil petition. No court has tested them, the office has not filed an answer, and nothing here should be read as a conclusion about who is right. The value of the filing for Missouri readers lies in the statutory machinery it invokes.
Two statutes, divided by who signs the paycheck
Private employers: the Whistleblower’s Protection Act
Section 285.575, effective August 28, 2017, is the statute most Missourians mean when they say “whistleblower law.” Enacted as part of Senate Bill 43, its third subsection states the purpose plainly: it codifies the existing common law exceptions to at-will employment and limits their future expansion by the courts. It is a ceiling as much as a floor.
Two threshold limits do most of the work. An “employer” under the act is an entity with six or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. More decisively for a case like this one, the statute provides that “employer” shall not include the state of Missouri or its agencies, instrumentalities, or political subdivisions, including public institutions of higher education. A state office sits outside the act entirely.
The act also removes protection in two situations that arise constantly. A supervisory, managerial, or executive employee is not a protected person when the misconduct reported “concerns matters upon which the employee is employed to report or provide professional opinion.” An employee is likewise unprotected when the only person told is the person accused. Compliance officers, auditors, and department heads frequently find that the first exclusion describes their job description.
Public employers: section 105.055
Section 105.055, in its current form effective August 28, 2018, covers what section 285.575 excludes. Its definition of “public employer” reaches any state agency or office, the General Assembly, any unit or political subdivision of the state, and any other instrumentality of the state, which in practical terms includes counties, municipalities, school districts, and fire protection districts. Its definition of “public employee” is broader still, covering any employee, volunteer, intern, or other individual performing work or services for a public employer.
Subsection 9 settles the relationship between the statutes: the section applies to public employees “notwithstanding any provisions of [sections] 213.070 and 285.575 to the contrary.” The two laws are not alternatives to be chosen between. They are addressed to different employers.
What section 105.055 actually protects
A supervisor or appointing authority may not discipline a public employee for disclosing information the employee reasonably believes shows:
- a violation of any law, rule, or regulation;
- mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, or abuse of authority;
- violation of policy or waste of public resources;
- alteration of technical findings or communication of scientific opinion;
- breaches of professional ethical canons; or
- a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.
“Disciplinary action” is defined broadly and includes dismissal, demotion, transfer, reassignment, suspension, reprimand, a warning of possible dismissal, and the withholding of work, whether or not compensation is affected.
The statute goes further than a prohibition on retaliation. It forbids a supervisor from barring an employee from discussing the operations of the public employer with a member of the legislature, the state auditor, the attorney general, a prosecuting or circuit attorney, a law enforcement agency, the news media, or the public, and it requires every public employer to post a copy of the section where employees can reasonably be expected to see it.
The protection has limits. Discipline remains available where the employee knew the information was false, where the information is closed or confidential under the open meetings law or another statute, or where the disclosure relates to the employee’s own violations. An employee who forwards sealed records to make a point may forfeit the very protection the disclosure was meant to earn.
“We claim Nick was fired because he blew the whistle on what he believed to be violations of law, violations of policy, abuses of power, alteration of technical findings.”
Dennis Egan, counsel for the plaintiff, quoted by St. Louis Public Radio. Those four categories track the language of section 105.055 nearly word for word, which is what a petition drafted to the statute tends to look like.
The burden of proof shifts, but only after a high initial showing
Under section 105.055, a public employee bringing a civil action must show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she, or someone acting on his or her behalf, reported or was about to report a prohibited activity. Once that showing is made, the statute shifts the burden to the public employer to demonstrate that the discipline was not the result of the report. Cases therefore tend to turn on documentation of the report itself.
Section 285.575 uses a different test. An adverse action is taken “because of” protected status when that status was “the motivating factor,” defined as having actually played a role in the decision and having had a determinative influence on it.
What a successful claim is worth
Public employees, section 105.055
Actual damages, with the court authorized to award all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees. Either party may request a jury, and suit may be brought where the violation occurred, where the complainant resides, or where the defendant resides. An administrative appeal to the Administrative Hearing Commission is available in addition, and the commission may modify or reverse the agency’s action and may recommend suspension or removal of the official responsible.
Private employees, section 285.575
Back pay and reimbursement of medical bills directly related to the violation, and nothing else by way of compensatory relief. Punitive damages are expressly unavailable. If the employee proves by clear and convincing evidence that the employer’s conduct was outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference, the award may be doubled as liquidated damages. A prevailing party may recover court costs and reasonable attorney fees, but a prevailing employer may recover fees only on a showing that the case was without foundation.
Human Rights Act retaliation claims, section 213.111
Actual and punitive damages combined are capped by employer size, on top of actual back pay and interest: $50,000 for employers with more than five and fewer than 101 employees, rising in steps to $500,000 for those above 500.
Practical consequences for Missouri employers
Public employers carry an affirmative obligation that private employers do not. The posting requirement is not discretionary, and a missing notice is an unhelpful fact to explain at trial. The statute also rewards employers who separate the complaint channel from the people complaints are about. When the only person an employee can report to is the person accused, the employer has removed one of the few exclusions that would otherwise protect it.
Private employers face a narrower but real exposure. Because section 285.575 and chapter 213 together are framed as the exclusive remedy for claims of unlawful employment practices, litigation tends to be fought over statutory thresholds rather than open-ended tort theories. Contemporaneous documentation of performance concerns, created before any protected report, remains the single most useful thing an employer can produce.
Practical consequences for Missouri employees
Put the report in writing, and keep copies of records you are entitled to have, which is a different thing from taking records that are closed or confidential. Direct the report to someone other than the person whose conduct is at issue. Calendar the one-year and 180-day dates the week the discipline occurs rather than after severance negotiations end. If the underlying misconduct concerns the receipt or expenditure of public funds, section 105.055 permits a request that the state auditor investigate, which can extend the filing window to ninety days after the auditor’s report is released.
Helpful resources
The coverage below is drawn from several vantage points and labeled by ownership, so you can weigh each account and reach your own conclusion.
- RSMo § 105.055, public employee whistleblower protections · Missouri Revisor of Statutes (Missouri state government, primary source)
- RSMo § 285.575, the Whistleblower’s Protection Act · Missouri Revisor of Statutes (Missouri state government, primary source)
- RSMo § 213.070, retaliation under the Human Rights Act · Missouri Revisor of Statutes (Missouri state government, primary source)
- RSMo § 213.075, the 180-day verified complaint requirement · Missouri Revisor of Statutes (Missouri state government, primary source)
- RSMo § 213.111, civil actions, deadlines, and damage caps · Missouri Revisor of Statutes (Missouri state government, primary source)
- Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission · Missouri state agency (primary source for the administrative appeal route)
- Missouri Commission on Human Rights · Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (state agency, primary source)
- Missouri State Auditor · independently elected Missouri statewide office (primary source)
- “Missouri election chief faces whistleblower lawsuit from fired election integrity director” · The Associated Press, a non-profit news cooperative widely regarded as neutral, carried here by WRAL (Capitol Broadcasting Company, a privately held North Carolina broadcaster)
- “Former Missouri election integrity director sues Secretary of State Hoskins” · St. Louis Public Radio, an NPR member station licensed to the University of Missouri–St. Louis and supported by listeners and underwriters
If you are weighing a report at work, responding to one as an employer, or trying to place a dispute among Missouri’s overlapping statutes, our employment law and civil rights pages describe how we approach these matters, and employers reviewing policies and reporting channels may also find our business law and business litigation pages useful.
Related on this site: A Signed Arbitration Agreement Did Not Count Because the Job Never Started · Missouri Is Sued Over Lincoln University’s Land-Grant Funding. The Unmatched Federal Dollars Already Went to Other States.
Talk through your situation before the clock runs
Whistleblower and retaliation claims turn on dates and documentation, and both are easier to protect early than to reconstruct later.
Or call (314) 732-1547
This article is provided for general educational purposes only and is not legal or tax advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Haake Law Group PC or Derek R. Haake. The allegations described above are drawn from a civil petition and news reporting and have not been adjudicated. Statutes, court rules, and agency interpretations change, and their application depends on the specific facts of a given matter. Verify current law with the Missouri Revisor of Statutes or the relevant agency and consult a licensed attorney before acting on anything discussed here.