Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.111 (2026)

Right to civil action, when

✓ current as of May 2026

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

213.111. Right to civil action, when — relief available — costs and attorney's fees, awarded when — right to trial by jury — maximum damages — burden of proof, employment-related civil actions. — 1. If, after one hundred eighty days from the filing of a complaint alleging an unlawful discriminatory practice pursuant to section 213.055, 213.065 or 213.070 to the extent that the alleged violation of section 213.070 relates to or involves a violation of section 213.055 or 213.065, or subdivision (3) of subsection 1^* of section 213.070 as it relates to employment and public accommodations, the commission has not completed its administrative processing and the person aggrieved so requests in writing, the commission shall issue to the person claiming to be aggrieved a letter indicating his or her right to bring a civil action within ninety days of such notice against the respondent named in the complaint. If, after the filing of a complaint pursuant to sections 213.040, 213.045, 213.050 and 213.070, to the extent that the alleged violation of section 213.070 relates to or involves a violation of sections 213.040, 213.045 and 213.050, or subdivision (3) of subsection 1^* of section 213.070 as it relates to housing, and the person aggrieved so requests in writing, the commission shall issue to the person claiming to be aggrieved a letter indicating his or her right to bring a civil action within ninety days of such notice against the respondent named in the complaint. The commission may not at any other time or for any other reason issue a letter indicating a complainant's right to bring a civil action. Such an action may be brought in any circuit court in any county in which the unlawful discriminatory practice is alleged to have been committed, either before a circuit or associate circuit judge. Upon issuance of this notice, the commission shall terminate all proceedings relating to the complaint. No person may file or reinstate a complaint with the commission after the issuance of a notice under this section relating to the same practice or act. Any action brought in court under this section shall be filed within ninety days from the date of the commission's notification letter to the individual but no later than two years after the alleged cause occurred or its reasonable discovery by the alleged injured party.

2. The court may grant as relief, as it deems appropriate, any permanent or temporary injunction, temporary restraining order, or other order, and may award to the plaintiff actual and punitive damages, and may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party, other than a state agency or commission or a local commission; except that, a prevailing respondent may be awarded reasonable attorney fees only upon a showing that the case was without foundation.

3. Any party to any action initiated under this section has a right to a trial by jury.

4. The sum of the amount of actual damages, including damages for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and punitive damages awarded under this section shall not exceed for each complaining party:

(1) Actual back pay and interest on back pay; and

(2) (a) In the case of a respondent who has more than five and fewer than one hundred one employees in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, fifty thousand dollars;

(b) In the case of a respondent who has more than one hundred and fewer than two hundred one employees in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, one hundred thousand dollars;

(c) In the case of a respondent who has more than two hundred and fewer than five hundred one employees in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, two hundred thousand dollars; or

(d) In the case of a respondent who has more than five hundred employees in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, five hundred thousand dollars.

5. In any employment-related civil action brought under this chapter, the plaintiff shall bear the burden of proving the alleged unlawful decision or action was made or taken because of his or her protected classification and was the direct proximate cause of the claimed damages.

--------

(L. 1986 S.B. 513 § 213.110, A.L. 1992 H.B. 1619, A.L. 1998 S.B. 786, A.L. 1999 H.B. 741, A.L. 2017 S.B. 43)

*Words "of subsection 1" do not appear here in original rolls. Section 213.070 was amended in S.B. 43, 2017, by adding subsections to that section.

(1998) Right-to-sue letter is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but is a condition precedent to bringing an action under MHRA. Whitmore v. O'Connor Management, Inc., 156 F.3d 796 (8th Cir.).

(1999) Statute is insufficiently explicit to overcome presumption against punitive damages when a municipality is the defendant. Kline v. City of Kansas City, 175 F.3d 660 (8th Cir.).

(2003) Civil action for damages only is neither equitable nor administrative in nature and thus is entitled to be tried by jury. State ex rel. Diehl v. O'Malley, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 112 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Diehl v. O'MALLEY, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Diehl v. O'MALLEY, 95 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 26× “The action for actual and punitive damages, brought by Diehl as plaintiff in the circuit court, is authorized by section 213.111. 11 The statutorily based claims by Diehl are conceptually indistinguishable from other statutory actions for damages that traditionally have carried…”

Igoe v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations of the State, 152 S.W.3d 284 (Mo. 2005). · cites it 16× “Section 213.111. The commission had an opportunity to determine, in the first instance, the validity of Igoe's claims because the commission and its staff have the statutory authority to investigate, to determine whether there is probable cause to believe discrimination has…”

Farrow v. Saint Francis Med. Ctr., 407 S.W.3d 579 (Mo. 2013). · cites it 10× “Section 213.111. The proper forum to file a writ of mandamus was with the circuit court pursuant to section 536.”

Brady v. Curators of the Univ. of Missouri, 213 S.W.3d 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 10× “UMSL contends that the trial court inter *107 preted and applied Section 213.111 2 of the MHRA incorrectly.”

State Ex Rel. Martin-Erb v. Missouri Comm'n on Human Rights, 77 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 8× “Martin-Erb’s petition was, in effect, a civil action against Wal-Mart, and that she could have sought a “right to sue” letter from the MCHR permitting her to file such an action, but that she had failed to do so within the two-year statutory period provided in section 213.111.…”

Keeney v. Missouri High. & Transp. Comm'n, 70 S.W.3d 597 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “Section 213.111 states: 1. If, after one hundred eighty days from the filing of a complaint alleging an unlawful discriminatory practice pursuant to section .”

Bachtel v. Miller Cnty. Nursing Home Dist., 110 S.W.3d 799 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 4× “3d at 599 -600 (citing section 213.111); H.S., 967 S.W.2d at 673 (same).”

Green v. City of St. Louis, 870 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. 1994). · cites it 7× “On January 17,1989, the MCHR notified Green that he had the right to commence a civil action against the city pursuant to § 213.111, RSMo 1986. On April 17, 1989, Mr.”

Est. of Overbey v. Chad Franklin Nat'l Auto Sales North, LLC, 361 S.W.3d 364 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 4× “The provisions of this section shall not apply to civil actions brought under section 213.111 that allege a violation of section 213.”

Hill v. City of St. Louis, 371 S.W.3d 66 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “§ 213.111,” and (2) refusing to give defendant’s Instructions 6A and 11A because these instructions correctly declared the law by accurately setting forth the conduct actionable under section 213.”

Hammond v. Mun. Corr. Inst., 117 S.W.3d 130 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “The letter also, in the first sentence, directed Hammond to section 213.111, RSMo, the statute of limitations set out above.”

Hervey v. Missouri Dep't of Corr., 379 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 3× “Section 213.111, RSMo 2000, creates a civil right of action for an employee against an employer for unlawful discrimination that allows an aggrieved employee to recover actual and punitive damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.”

Show all 112 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.111(1) — 5 cases

Gipson v. KAS Snacktime Co., 874 F. Supp. 1548 (E.D. Mo. 1993).

Vankempen v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 923 F. Supp. 146 (E.D. Mo. 1996).

State Ex Rel. Dilliard's, Inc. v. Ohmer, 190 S.W.3d 570 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Waldermeyer v. ITT Consum. Fin. Corp., 767 F. Supp. 989 (E.D. Mo. 1991).

Herrero v. St. Louis Univ. Hosp., 929 F. Supp. 1260 (E.D. Mo. 1996).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.111(2) — 1 case

Noblet v. Reproduction Sys., Inc. (In re Reproduction Sys., Inc.), 133 B.R. 493 (W.D. Mo. 1991).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.111(5) — 1 case

Castellano, III v. Betts (E.D. Mo. 2021).

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.