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... ↗

Full Text

1,022 chars

Keeney contends that section 213.070 is sufficiently broad to include any person against whom retaliation occurs as a result of filing a complaint with the Commission, whether or not the person is an employee of the company charged with retaliation. Hereford disagrees, claiming that such an interpretation of the statute would produce absurd results unintended by the legislature. Instead, Hereford argues that section 213.070 must be read in a manner consistent with federal law because "`[d]ecisions under the various federal employment discrimination statutes are applicable and authoritative under the [Act] as well as federal law.'" Finley v. Empiregas, Inc. of Potosi, 975 F.2d 467, 473 (8th Cir.1992), quoting Lane v. Ground Round, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 1219, 1223 (E.D.Mo.1991). Accord Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, 863 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Mo. App.1993) ("If there is no Missouri law [interpreting chapter 213] we may apply relevant federal law. [Emphasis partly in original.]")

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text