Missouri Remains a Paradise for Enforcement of Noncompetes.
In Paradise v. Midwest Asphalt Coatings, Inc., No. WD70944 slip op. (Mo. App. W.D. Mar. 16, 2010) the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District held that an employer is entitled to immediate injunctive relief for the threatened violation of a covenant not to compete, even in the absence of the employee's actual or threatened solicitation of customers. The court's opinion highlights the seeming dichotomy between noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements in Missouri.
Missouri Supreme Throws a Couple of Curve Balls and Tags Employers in Wrongful Discharge Cases.
The Missouri Supreme Court recently issued rulings on three cases relating to the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. These three cases directly impact wrongful discharge cases against employers in Missouri. The three main issues these cases discussed are: (1) the proper causation standard to apply in wrongful discharge cases; (2) whether contractual employees may pursue wrongful discharge claims; and (3) what can constitute a basis for a “public policy.”.
The Missouri Supreme Court Adopts and Clarifies the Public Policy Exception in Wrongful Discharge Claims in a Trilogy of Opinions.
In a trio of cases decided on February 9, 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court formally recognized for the first time the cause of action for wrongful discharge based upon the public policy exception for at-will employees. Missouri appellate courts had previously held that such a cause of action existed, but it was unclear in what circumstances the cause of action was available to an employee and what standard of proof was required for an employee to prevail. In three separate opinions, the Missouri Supreme Court expressly adopted the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine in holding that an employee may not be terminated: (1) for refusing to violate the law or any well established and clear mandate of public policy expressed in the constitution, statutes, or rules or regulations promulgated by a governmental body, or (2) for reporting wrongdoing to superiors or public authorities. The court noted that not all constitutional provisions, statutes, or rules or regulations give rise to a wrongful discharge cause of action under the public policy exception; the provision must constitute a well-established and clearly mandated public policy. Further, the court indicated that the provision relied upon by the employee must clearly prohibit the conduct at issue.
Missouri eAuthority.
Eighth Circuit Rejects Workers' Disparate Impact Claim; Inadequate Background Checks Could Result in Jury Trials; Supervisors Can Be Held Liable Under the MHRA; I’ve Got A Question . . .
Missouri Courts Further Restrict the Application of Covenants Not To Compete.
The Missouri Court of Appeals has held that a covenant not to compete and nonsolicitation agreement, which was reasonable in scope and temporal terms, was, nevertheless, unenforceable because the employer did not establish that an employee, who had substantial customer contacts, could make use of those contacts with customers to his former employer's disadvantage.
Missouri Supreme Court Further Differentiates the Missouri Human Rights Act from Title VII.
Continuing a departure from federal precedent, the Missouri Supreme Court held in Cynthia Hill v. Ford Motor Co., No. SC88981 (Feb. 24, 2009) (en banc),1 that harassment claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) are not to be analyzed under the federal McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, but simply under the language of the MHRA. As a result, a Missouri plaintiff faces less of a burden when proving harassment cases under the MHRA. The Missouri Supreme Court also made clear that any person acting directly in the interest of the employer, including a supervisor, is considered an "employer" under the MHRA and may be individually liable under the MHRA, despite the fact that the individual was not named in the underlying charge of discrimination or in right-to-sue letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR).
Court Rejects Labor Groups' Challenge To Missouri Workers' Comp Amendments.
In a long-awaited decision, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected this week claims asserted by labor and non-profit organizations that “business-friendly” amendments to the Missouri workers’ compensation statute were unconstitutional.
Do Missouri and Kansas Employees Have the Right to Vote During Work Hours?
With elections around the corner, Ogletree Deakins Shareholder Jill Morris reminds companies that “election season is always a good time to revisit company policies about voting rights and to make sure your company’s human resources personnel are familiar with employees’ right to vote.”
FAQs on Missouri's New Immigration Law.
The law prohibits employers from knowingly employing, hiring, or continuing to employ unauthorized workers. The law’s definition of employer is broad, so that it includes virtually all private sector employers.
Missouri is Latest State to Enact E-Verify Requirement.
On July 7, 2008, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt signed legislation requiring state contractors to enroll in E-Verify. With this measure, Missouri joins a growing number of states seeking to regulate employment of illegal workers. The Missouri legislation is quite similar to analogous measures enacted in Colorado, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Utah. Contractors in Arizona, Mississippi, and South Carolina are subject to legislation that already requires all private employers to enroll in E-Verify.
