holding elements of an employment sex discrimination claim under section 213.055 are: "that complainant [ (1) ] was a member of a class protected by § 296.020.1; [ (2) ] that she was discharged; and [ (3
How later courts described this case
- holding elements of an employment sex discrimination claim under section 213.055 are: "that complainant [ (1) ] was a member of a class protected by § 296.020.1; [ (2) ] that she was discharged; and [ (3
- holding state law disparate- treatment claims should be evaluated under burden-shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)
- holding disparate treatment claims should be evaluated using the McDonnell Douglas framework
- looking at whether the defendant employer’s conduct was “motivated by an invidious purpose or whether it was based on a legitimate and rational consideration”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
BLACKMAR, District Judge.
It is inconceivable to me that the Court would allow its opinion to stand in the face of Hansome v. Northwestern Cooperage Company, No. 65865, decided today. I had always assumed that the Missouri Commission on Human Rights had authority, similar to the authority possessed by a jury, to determine questions of credibility. The Court’s opinion reversed a decision of the Commission by giving conclusive effect to controverted evidence, while ignoring the claimant’s evidence.