Sorting out employment law in Missouri: discipline file, document control, and what deserves review first

Missouri's employment law landscape was defined by a decisive democratic action in August 2018 that made national headlines: Missouri voters, through Proposition A (the state's referendum on a right-to-work law passed by the legislature), rejected right-to-work by 67% to 33% — one of the widest margins in any modern state referendum on a labor issue. The referendum process, unique among Missouri's legal tools, allowed voters to override the Missouri General Assembly's 2017 right-to-work legislation before it took effect. Missouri remains a union shop state — meaning collective bargaining agreements in unionized workplaces can require union membership (or agency fees) as a condition of continued employment, and the United Auto Workers, Teamsters, and building trades unions retain significant organizational presence in Missouri's manufacturing and construction sectors. The St. Louis region (home to Anheuser-Busch InBev, Boeing Defense, Space and Security's St. Louis operations, and the Ford Missouri Assembly Complex in Claycomo) and Kansas City (GM Wentzville Assembly, Ford Truck Assembly) have unionized manufacturing workplaces operating under Missouri's pro-union framework.

Missouri's employment discrimination framework is anchored in the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA, RSMo § 213.010 et seq.), which differs from Title VII and the ADA in several significant ways. The MHRA applies to employers with six or more employees — a lower threshold than Title VII's fifteen employees — meaning smaller Missouri businesses that would be exempt from federal discrimination law are still covered by state law. The MHRA prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, and age (40+). Notably, the Missouri legislature has NOT added sexual orientation or gender identity as protected categories under the MHRA, despite federal courts' interpretation of Title VII following the Supreme Court's Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) decision extending sex discrimination protections to LGBTQ+ employees under federal law. Missouri employees claiming LGBTQ+ discrimination must rely on the federal Title VII framework (applying to employers with 15+ employees) rather than the MHRA for state court claims.

Missouri Non-Compete Agreements: Blue-Penciling and Enforceability

Missouri courts enforce non-compete agreements subject to a reasonableness test — Missouri has no statutory ban on non-competes (unlike California) and no specific statute regulating them (unlike Indiana or states with non-compete reform legislation). Missouri courts have discretion to "blue-pencil" — modify — overly broad non-compete agreements rather than voiding them entirely. The standard for enforceability in Missouri: the restriction must be (1) ancillary to an employment contract or the sale of a business; (2) supported by adequate consideration; (3) reasonably limited in time (1-2 years typical; more than 2 years faces scrutiny); (4) reasonably limited in geographic scope (a Kansas City sales territory restriction is more enforceable than a national ban for a non-senior employee); and (5) reasonably related to protecting a legitimate business interest (customer relationships, trade secrets, confidential information — not simply eliminating competition). Missouri's blue-penciling approach means courts may reduce an unreasonable geographic scope or duration rather than voiding the agreement, which provides employers more protection than in states where courts void entire unenforceable agreements.