Federal Court Opens Door to Individual Liability Under the MHRA

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri recently concluded individual employees may be liable under the Missouri Human Rights Act for sexual harassment. Specifically, in Hill v. Ford Motor Co., Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. decided there was a "reasonable basis for predicting the Missouri Supreme Court might impose liability under the MHRA against individual defendants."

Cynthia Hill filed a Missouri Rights Act case in state court alleging sexual harassment and sex discrimination. She named her employer, Ford Motor Company, and two of its employees, Ken Hume and Paul Edds, as defendants. Ford promptly removed the case to federal court, arguing Hill fraudulently joined the two individual defendants to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. To determine whether joinder of the individual defendants was fraudulent, the court analyzed whether the MHRA -- as opposed to Title VII -- might impose individual liability on them.

Almost 10 years ago, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals predicted -- based on the MHRA's similarity to Title VII, which does not provide for individual liability -- that the Missouri Supreme Court would conclude the MHRA did not provide for individual liability. In questioning the continuing accuracy of that prediction, Judge Limbaugh explained the Missouri Supreme Court does not "blindly follow the 'predictions' of the federal courts" and pointed out that the Missouri Supreme Court had already found substantial differences between the MHRA and Title VII (e.g., regarding the scope of discriminatory retaliation). Further, Judge Limbaugh noted the Circuit Court for the County of St. Louis recently rejected the Eighth Circuit's analysis and concluded individual liability exists under the MHRA. Finally, Judge Limbaugh emphasized "a recent Eighth Circuit case has held that under the FMLA [Family Medical Leave Act], which defines 'employer' in the almost same manner as does the MHRA, individuals can be held liable for discriminatory acts."

Based on the foregoing, Judge Limbaugh concluded individual liability very well may exist under the MRHA. Accordingly, he elected not to determine the fraudulent joinder issue, but instead to remand the case to state court.

On the heels of Diehl, Hill makes it increasingly likely Missouri employers will find themselves in state court, not federal court. Diehl made jury trials available for the first time on MHRA claims, which resulted in more employment claims being filed in state court. (Formerly, employees would file MHRA claims in federal court to ensure the availability of a jury trial.) However, employers remained able to remove cases to federal court, including on diversity bases. Hill now makes that more difficult.