561 S.W.3d 57
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Natasha Jordan, an African‑American female, worked as a Bi‑State bus driver and alleged sexual harassment, race/sex/disability discrimination, and retaliation by supervisor Lawrence Brew; she filed an MHRA suit after receiving a right‑to‑sue notice.
- Bi‑State Development Agency is an interstate compact agency created by Missouri and Illinois; compact status limits one state’s ability to unilaterally impose burdens on the agency.
- At the time Jordan filed, Missouri’s MHRA used a "contributing factor" burden of proof (broader employer liability) while Illinois’ IHRA applied a "motivating factor" standard (narrower); the difference mattered for compact application.
- Bi‑State moved to dismiss, arguing the MHRA’s contributing‑factor standard would impermissibly impose a unilateral burden on the compact absent Illinois’ concurrence; the trial court granted the motion.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the difference in burdens meant the MHRA was not a "complementary or parallel" law under Redbird and thus could not be applied to Bi‑State; Jordan’s Point II (exhaustion) was moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MHRA may be applied to Bi‑State (an interstate compact agency) without Illinois' concurrence | MHRA and IHRA are complementary/parallel; MHRA does not impermissibly burden Bi‑State | MHRA’s contributing‑factor standard imposes a unilateral burden on the compact absent concurrence | MHRA could not be applied to Bi‑State because the differing burdens were not complementary/parallel; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Jordan exhausted administrative remedies | Jordan alleged she exhausted and obtained MCHR right‑to‑sue | Respondents argued dismissal appropriate on compact grounds regardless | Court found compact issue dispositive and deemed exhaustion issue moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Redbird Eng’g Sales, Inc. v. Bi‑State Dev. Agency, 806 S.W.2d 695 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (adopted "complementary or parallel" test for when one signatory’s law may bind a bi‑state compact)
- Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) (Missouri MHRA interpreted to allow a contributing‑factor standard, broadening employer liability)
- Wierman v. Casey’s Gen. Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (illustrates different outcomes under motivating‑factor vs contributing‑factor standards)
- KMOV TV, Inc. v. Bi‑State Dev. Agency, 625 F. Supp. 2d 808 (E.D. Mo. 2008) (discusses limits on unilateral state legislation affecting bi‑state compact agencies)
- Hess v. Port Authority Trans‑Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (1994) (recognizes unique sovereign status of interstate compact entities)
- Miner v. Bi‑State Dev. Agency, 943 F.2d 912 (8th Cir. 1991) (federal Title VII provides a remedy against Bi‑State)