Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.085 (2026)

Decisions of commission

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

213.085. Decisions of commission — judicial review, when, procedure, venue — enforcement of order — breech of settlement agreement, remedy. — 1. All final decisions, settlement agreements, conciliation agreements, findings, rules and orders of the commission under any provision of this chapter shall be in writing. Parties to proceedings shall each be sent a copy of the commission's decision and order in the proceedings.

2. Any person who is aggrieved by a final decision, finding, rule or order of the commission may obtain judicial review by filing a petition in the circuit court of the county of proper venue within thirty days after the mailing or delivery of the notice of the commission's final decision.

3. Judicial review shall be in the manner provided by chapter 536, as it may be amended or superseded from time to time. The venue of such cases shall, at the option of the appealing party, be in the circuit court of Cole County or in the county of the appealing party's residence, or if the appealing party is a corporation, domestic or foreign, having a registered office or business office in this state, in the county of its registered office or business office.

4. If no proceeding for review is instituted in the circuit court within the time herein prescribed, the commission may obtain an order in a proceeding brought in the circuit court of the county wherein the unlawful discriminatory practice which is the subject of the commission's order occurred, or the county wherein any person required in the order to cease and desist from an unlawful discriminatory practice, or to take other affirmative action, resides or conducts business. The record on the commission's petition for enforcement shall consist solely of duly certified records of the commission showing that it has jurisdiction over the respondent, that the procedure prescribed by this action has been complied with, and a certified copy of the commission's order with proof of service. On such a petition, the inquiry of the court shall be limited to a determination of whether the action of the commission is in excess of its statutory authority or jurisdiction and whether the respondent has substantially complied with the order of the commission.

5. Where no proceeding for judicial review is filed within the time established under subsection 3 of this section, and the commission has not filed a petition for enforcement of its order in the circuit court, any person entitled to relief may, after the expiration of sixty days from the date of the commission's order, file a petition for enforcement of the commission's decision in a circuit court having proper venue thereof. The contents of the petition and the jurisdiction of the court shall be as set forth in subsection 4 of this section.

6. Where a suit for enforcement of a commission order has been filed pursuant to either subsection 4 or 5 of this section, the circuit court shall issue its order enforcing the commission decision, unless the party against whom enforcement is sought affirmatively shows that:

(1) The court is without jurisdiction or venue;

(2) Such commission order violates the provisions of the constitution of this state or of the United States;

(3) The commission order is beyond its statutory authority or jurisdiction; or

(4) The party has substantially complied with the order of the commission.

7. Where the commission deems there has been a breach of the terms or conditions of a settlement agreement or conciliation agreement, the commission shall institute an action in circuit court to enforce the terms of the agreement or to obtain the appropriate remedy for such breach. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the parties to such agreement from personally filing suit to enforce this subsection.

--------

(L. 1986 S.B. 513, A.L. 1992 H.B. 1619)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Farrow v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 407 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Farrow v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 407 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. 2013). · cites it 2× “Defendants’ argue section 213.085 is inapplicable because the issuance of a right to sue letter by the Commission does not constitute a "final decision, finding, rule, or order” because it did not reach the merits of Farrow's complaint.”

State Ex Rel. Diehl v. O'MALLEY, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 2× “When the commission adjudicates a complaint through hearing, the decision can be appealed to a circuit court, under section 213.085, and judicial review is provided in accordance with chapter 536, which governs judicial review of administrative decisions.”

Grissom v. First Nat'l Ins. Agency, 371 S.W.3d 869 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “When the commission adjudicates a complaint through hearing, the decision can be appealed to a circuit court, under section 213.085, and judicial review is provided in accordance with chapter 536, which governs judicial review of administrative decisions.”

State Ex Rel. Martin-Erb v. Missouri Comm'n on Human Rights, 77 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. 2002). “If it does so, its ruling may be reviewed as a contested case pursuant to sections 213.085 and 536.100. 3 If the executive director finds “no probable cause,” then the complaint is closed and the complainant can proceed no further.”

State Ex Rel. Tolbert v. Sweeney, 828 S.W.2d 929 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). “§ 213.085. An alternative to the procedure above described is provided by § 213.”

State of Missouri, Ex Rel. Tivol Plaza, Inc. v. Missouri Comm'n on Human Rights (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Farrow found that the Commission’s issuance of a right to sue letter, even one stating that the Commission had been unable to conclude its investigation, constituted a “final decision, finding, rule or order” subject to judicial review pursuant to §§ 213.085 and 536.150. 407…”

Gustafson v. Bi-State Dev. Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metro. Dist. (E.D. Mo. 2020). · cites it 2× “Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.085 . All of these provisions, along with others not mentioned, serve to protect the rights of the complainant while at the same time fulfill the purpose of the Commission to resolve complaints in an informal manner and to “encourage fair treatment for and…”

Barbara Vega v. Missouri Comm'n on Human Rights (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “This provision of judicial review generally indicates that the General Assembly would not contemplate that the Commission would be subjected to a private action for damages for the erroneous processing of complaints when such errors could be corrected through the judicial review…”

Mary McClendon v. Missouri Comm'n on Human Rights (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Where the Commission has issued a final decision, order, or finding, persons aggrieved may seek judicial review of such decisions, findings, and orders pursuant to section 213.085. This provision of judicial review generally indicates that the General Assembly would not…”

State of Missouri Ex Rel. Dmitry Solenov, Ph.D. vs. Missouri Comm'n on Human Rights, et al. & Saint Louis Univ. (Mo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “" 7 Both parties conceded during oral argument that while Chapter 213 authorizes a person who complains of discrimination to bring a private civil action against an employer after requesting and receiving a right-to-sue letter from the MCHR, Chapter 213 separately authorizes the…”

Mohammad Q. Najib v. Missouri Comm'n on Human Rights & Mercy Clinic Joplin (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). “3 On May 4, 2020, Najib filed a “Petition for Judicial Review, Prohibition and Mandamus Pursuant to §213.085 R.S.MO. And/Or §536.150 R.S.MO.”4 The petition contained three counts.”

El-Scari v. Comprehensive Mental Health Servs. (W.D. Mo. 2019). “However, this letter is a final decision of the MCHR under § 213.085, not a right-to-sue letter under § 213.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.085(2) — 1 case

Allen v. At Home Store, Inc (W.D. Mo. 2023).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.