Section 213

Citation: Section 213
Parent Document: Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1995-12-19
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1666983/keeney-v-hereford-concrete-prod... ↗

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Keeney v. Hereford Concrete Products, Inc., 911 S.W.2d 622 (1995)
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213
Section 213

Full Text

444 chars

Retaliation does not require that a contractual relationship exist between the alleged victim of retaliation and the alleged perpetrator. It merely requires the commission or omission of an act as a quid pro quo for the filing of a complaint before the Commission. While the statutory language is broad enough to give us pause, it is unambiguous and consistent with the purposes of chapter 213. The trial court erred in concluding otherwise. C.