The Missouri Supreme Court’s August 27, 2013, decision in Farrow v. Saint Francis Medical Center provided a stunning result in a case presenting a common fact pattern. Farrow filed a charge of discrimination more than 180 days and less than 300 days after her discharge. Therefore, the charge was timely under Title VII, but untimely under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The EEOC was assigned to investigate the charge and it eventually issued a right to sue notice. As is its custom, the Missouri Commission on Human Rights issued a right to sue shortly after it learned of the EEOC’s dismissal of the charge. When Farrow sued under the MHRA, the defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that her underlying discrimination charge was untimely. The circuit court granted the motion.
On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed. It held that employees who file untimely MHRA charges may pursue MHRA lawsuits so long as they receive right to sue notices from the MCHR and file their suits within 90 days of receipt of those notices. The Court found that the MCHR does not have jurisdiction over untimely charges and therefore does not have the authority to issue right to sue notices based on such charges. However, by waiting until the discrimination case was pending in court, the defendants had waived this defense. Instead, the Court held that the company had to challenge the timeliness of the charge either prior to the issuance of the right to sue notice and/or by filing a lawsuit against the MCHR after its issuance of the right to sue notice.
Please see full alert below for more information.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.