Home » Politics/Policy » Currently Reading:

Guest Opinion: Weaker Anti-Discrimination Policy is Bad for Missouri

April 21, 2011 Politics/Policy 4 Comments
ABOVE: Entry to the Missouri Governor's Office, photo by Steve Patterson

by Rachel Boeglin

HB205 and SB188 are harmful to the state of Missouri, its employees, and even to those looking for housing.

These bills change the language of the Missouri Human Rights Act to make it harder to prove discrimination.  If these bills succeed, instead of showing that discrimination was a “contributing factor” in an adverse action, victims of discrimination will have to show that discrimination was the “motivating factor”.  As the burden is already on the victim to prove discrimination, this change in language makes it much harder to prove that discrimination is the majority of the reason for the resulting firing or unequal treatment in employment or in housing. The bills make it easier for employers and housing providers to hide behind a pretext, or even simply ignorance of the law.

Despite the fact that this legislation has been brought to the table with the guise of bringing state law closer to that of federal law, it ironically may do the opposite, making state law no longer substantially equivalent to federal law. According to the Committee on Legislative Research’s Oversight Division, this would mean the loss of over $1.1 million, via the withdrawal of funding from H.U.D. and the E.E.O.C. to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.

This loss of funds could even lead to the closing of the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, thus requiring that victims of discrimination file cases with H.U.D. and the E.E.O.C., federal entities that can already be overwhelmed. This, in turn, could also lead to Missouri discrimination cases being evaluated by out of state assessors.

The bills have other very negative impacts on employment, such as the capping of punitive damages that can be charged to discriminating employers and erasing individual liability against discriminators.

As of April 18th, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has fifteen days in which to either approve or veto the bill.  Concerned Missouri citizens can contact the governor’s office to encourage a bill veto.

Rachel Boeglin is a senior social work major at St. Louis University, currently completing her practicum at the St. Louis Metropolitan Equal Housing Opportunity Council (their mission is to “ensure equal access to housing for all people through education, counseling, investigation and enforcement”).

 

Currently there are "4 comments" on this Article:

  1. Anonymous says:

    It is still another salvo in attempting to turn America into a society that is run for a benefit of a few. Discrimination is hard enough to prove now, there is no real need to make changes. It is unfortunate that in the democracy of America it is necessary to enhance legality by the use of discrimination laws.
    But it is necessary to further describe the obligations of society and democracy to those who refuse to treat others as equals.
    I have no love for lawyers, but I must agree also capping damages is wrong, that is what a judge and jury is for, to decide what is fair. Otherwise fines become pocket change for the wealthy and essentially a license to do as they wish.
    As much as I believe a strong regulatory environment is necessary for business, I also believe their are far too many laws that unnecessarily creates burdens without really accomplishing anything significant other than more paperwork.
    This law passing frenzy that is ongoing and generally meaningless undermines useful laws such as this that protect individual rights. It makes it difficult for citizens to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

     
  2. gmichaud says:

    It is still another salvo in attempting to turn America into a society that is run for a benefit of a few. Discrimination is hard enough to prove now, there is no real need to make changes. It is unfortunate that in the democracy of America it is necessary to enhance legality by the use of discrimination laws.
    But it is necessary to further describe the obligations of society and democracy to those who refuse to treat others as equals.
    I have no love for lawyers, but I must agree also capping damages is wrong, that is what a judge and jury is for, to decide what is fair. Otherwise fines become pocket change for the wealthy and essentially a license to do as they wish.
    As much as I believe a strong regulatory environment is necessary for business, I also believe their are far too many laws that unnecessarily creates burdens without really accomplishing anything significant other than more paperwork.
    This law passing frenzy that is ongoing and generally meaningless undermines useful laws such as this that protect individual rights. It makes it difficult for citizens to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

     
  3. Anonymous says:

    Any ad or article that encourages me to contact an elected official to take action based solely on one person’s or group’s statements raises a red flag for me. Any political ad or article that starts off stating that something is “bad for . . . ” raises another red flag, as well. We have way too much “sound bite” legislating going on, and I’m not going to reduce what limited credibility I may have with a knee-jerk reaction to any issue. If this bill is now on the governor’s desk, it’s apparently already had a full hearing in both the House and the Senate. That said, I appreciate Rachel’s and Steve’s efforts to “spread the word”. Like many other bills, this the first that I’ve heard on the issue – I just don’t know enough, yet, to be in a position to contact the governor.

     
  4. JZ71 says:

    Any ad or article that encourages me to contact an elected official to take action based solely on one person’s or group’s statements raises a red flag for me. Any political ad or article that starts off stating that something is “bad for . . . ” raises another red flag, as well. We have way too much “sound bite” legislating going on, and I’m not going to reduce what limited credibility I may have with a knee-jerk reaction to any issue. If this bill is now on the governor’s desk, it’s apparently already had a full hearing in both the House and the Senate. That said, I appreciate Rachel’s and Steve’s efforts to “spread the word”. Like many other bills, this the first that I’ve heard on the issue – I just don’t know enough, yet, to be in a position to contact the governor.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe