Senate Bill No. 43 unlawful discriminatory practices (Research Paper)

History of the bill

Senate Bill No. 43 is a bill that was signed to law on June, 2017. The bill was first introduced by Senator Gary Romine during the 2017 legislative session. It was then signed and effected into law by Governor Eric Greitens. The bill intended to change Missouri Law particularly the Missouri Human Rights Act. Before its implementation, the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) stated that “a practice is unlawful when the protected classification is a contributing factor in the decision to discriminate” (Fuchs, 2017). However, the bill changed the standard to the motivating factor. According to this motivating factor. The employee’s protected classification played a role in the adverse action or choice and had a determinative influence on the adverse action or decision. Therefore, the person in question is required to further prove that such action was the direct proximate cause of the claimed damages. The sole purpose of the bill is modifying and creating new provisions that are associated with unlawful discriminatory practices. Therefore, employees have a chance to file a complaint with the MHRA which is a factor that was missing (Senate, 2017).

Formulation and Implementation of the policy

Senator Romine filed the bill in 2016 and read the bill for the first time on January 2017. A week later, on 10th January 2017, the bill was read for the second time and referred to the S small business and Industry committee.  The small business and industry committee is tasked with considering and reporting on bills and matters that are associated with the ownership and operation of small businesses. The committee comprised of senators Eric Burlison, Mike Moon, Doug Beck, Mike Bernskoetter, Andre Koenig, Barbara Washington and Senator Paul Wieland (Fuchs, 2017). After the bill was read and voted by the small business and industry committee, it was perfected and then sent to the Truly Perfected S Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics Committee after which it was send to the senate’s fiscal oversight committee. After it was passed by both committees, it was then referred to the H Special committee on litigation committee which schedule a day for hearing. On May 22, 2017 it was signed by senate president pro tem, house speaker and delivered to the governor. The governor then signed the bill on June 30, 2017 after which it was implemented into law (Senate, 2017).

Multiple perspectives on the issue or problem

Before the bill was passed, individuals acting in the interest of employers were categorized as employers within the MHRA and were all liable for discriminatory practices. However, the act modified the definition of the employer to exclude such people. The bill also excluded the national government and its owned corporation, people employed by employers, Indian tribes, private membership clubs and organizations operated by secretariat or religious bodies. Many people who supported the bill considered it a savior as it will level the playing field. Montgomery (2017) noted that if the bill was signed, it had the potential of ending a decade of judicial overreach. The bill will also put MHRA in line with the federal law and other states’ laws.

The right to work law having already being signed, it was clear that the Missouri legislature was determined to make the state of Missouri less hostile to businesses. For a long time, employees acting in position of the employer were sued by MHRA cases. However, with the introduction of the new policy such individuals were excluded from such suits. Due to this bill employees have a chance to proof any discriminatory acts from their employers and file a complaint (Garland, 2017).

Opposing positions about the policy and the target population.

Those in opposition noted that the bill will not be good since it will lead to loss of revenue in the state of Missouri. It was noted that the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, the Civil Rights Enforcement Agency of the City of St. Louis and the Kansas City Human Rights Commission will be affected since they will lose both federal enforcement jurisdiction and federal contracts which sum up to hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of the next six months as a direct result of SB 43.

An analysis of state legislation related to the issue

The bill had several amendments to the Missouri Human rights act. Some of the changes include limiting the ability to file class actions under the state law. It also restricts the mechanism of proving discrimination to require a proof of discriminatory intent. The Missouri bill law has impact in minimizing protections in public accommodations. For instance, a hospital manager who discriminates against things such as age, ethnicity, color, disability, race, sex, religion or native country is bound to be brought to justice an protect victims of discrimination (Rupe, 2017). The policy also reduces protections in housing. Therefore, people have the chance of filing federal fair housing complaints with the nation’s department of housing and urban development. The implemented policy also protects whistleblowers. Therefore, employers are not allowed to discharge employees of an employer who reports an illegal act of the employer. Also, employees who report to an employer severe misconduct of the employer who violates a clear mandate of public policy as stated within the constitution. The policy also bans liability against individuals thus meaning that an individual who is being accused is not allowed to be mentioned in the lawsuit. Such individuals could get jobs in different places but their bad record would not be recorded or used against them because the policy notes that they are not responsible for their behavior under the law of the state (Senate, 2017).

A critical appraisal of the policy

Despite the opposing sides of the SB 43 policy, there is a dire need of ensuring that Missouri’s standards are similar to those of the other states and the federal government. The new policy introduced a motivating factor standard for employment discrimination suits which was significant in ensuring that Missouri’s standards are in line with the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The changes in whistleblower laws such as the removal of protections for state employees and limiting punitive damages for victims of workplace discrimination was significant since it minimizes frolicsome cases and also enhance the business climate within the state. Those opposing the bill, for instance, Jeffrey Mittman; the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri claimed that leaders out to be fighting for policy decisions that will enhance the conditions in the state and not changing people’s rights particularly hardworking Missourians for their beliefs (Montgomery, 2017). However, this is not the case considering the fact that the policy levels the playfield for both the employers and employees to present their side of arguments and not providing the employer with more power while rendering the employee powerless.

Efforts made on behalf of the target population and outcomes

Proponents of the legislation in question advocated for the policy noting that it is important for the employees to be in a position of raising concerns without leaving in fear of losing their jobs. Legislatures further added that SB 43 was ideal for the state as it will create a chilling effect that will undermine the ability of Missouri to uncover wasteful and illegal use of the state’s money. Proponents of the bill advocated for the bill noting that it will be a significant aid especially to the minority groups who are often discriminated on the basis of race. Moreover, it was fare to employees who represent employers since the bill limits the scope of liability for individuals. Due to its implementation, complains can mention employers, labor organizations, employment agencies and not individuals (Griffin, 2017).

A proposal for further action

Issues of discrimination in the workplace have been rampant for a long time. It is thus important to come up with policies such as SB 43 that protect the employees from unfair treatment. It is the duty of social workers to challenge social injustice (NASW, 2021). Therefore, there is need for social workers to make a follow up on the bill and ensure that it is being implemented as deemed. This is important because social workers are tasked with the duty of pursuing social change especially on behalf of the oppressed individuals and groups that have been marginalized such as employees.

References

NASW. (2021). National Association of Social Workers (NASW). NASW - National Association of Social Workers. 

Montgomery, R. (2017). Greitens signs bill that raises standards for fired employees to win discrimination cases. THE KANSAS CITY STAR. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

Garland, B. (2017). The Missouri Human Rights Act—The Playing Field Has Been Leveled - Ogletree Deakins. Ogletree Deakins. Retrieved 17 April 2021, from https://ogletree.com/insights/the-missouri-human-rights-act-the-playing-field-has-been-leveled/.

Fuchs, E. (2017). Discriminatory SB 43 is Now the Law. PROMO. Retrieved 17 April 2021, from https://promoonline.org/news/discriminatory-senate-bill-43-now-law/.

Rupe, A. (2017). Missouri Bill SB 43 Goes Into Effect - Employment and HR - United States. Mondaq.com. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

Griffin, M. (2017). House now has bill to change Missouri’s definition of workplace discrimination. St. Louis Public Radio. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

Senate. (2017). SB43 - Modifies the law relating to unlawful discrimination. Senate.mo.gov. Retrieved 17 April 2021.

APPENDIX

History of the bill