287.780. Discrimination because of exercising compensation rights prohibited — civil action for damages — motivating factor defined. — No employer or agent shall discharge or discriminate against any employee for exercising any of his or her rights under this chapter when the exercising of such rights is the motivating factor in the discharge or discrimination. Any employee who has been discharged or discriminated against in such manner shall have a civil action for damages against his or her employer. For purposes of this section, "motivating factor" shall mean that the employee's exercise of his or her rights under this chapter actually played a role in the discharge or discrimination and had a determinative influence on the discharge or discrimination.
Notes of Decisions
John Templemire v. W&M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371 (Mo. 2014).
· cites it 135× “(hereinafter, “Employer”) on Templemire’s claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of section 287.780, RSMo 2000, 1 after Templemire sought workers’ compensation benefits and was discharged from his employment.”
Crow v. Crawford & Co., 259 S.W.3d 104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 19× “David Green on Appellants’ claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and discrimination under section 287.780 RSMo 2000. 1 Finding no error, we affirm.”
Hayes v. Show Me Believers, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 706 (Mo. 2006).
· cites it 28× “, alleging that Show Me discharged him in violation of section 287.780, RSMo 2000, after discovering that Hayes had filed a workers’ compensation claim against his former employer.”
Mark Deml v. Sheehan Pipeline Constr., 452 S.W.3d 211 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 20× “Section 287.780 provides: “No employer or agent shall discharge or in any way discriminate against any employee for exercising any of his rights under this chapter.”
Yerington v. La-Z-Boy, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 14× “Section 287.780, RSMo (2000) provides: "No employer .”
Hansome v. Nw. Cooperage Co., 679 S.W.2d 273 (Mo. 1984).
· cites it 10× “Section 287.780, RSMo 1978 provides: No employer or agent shall discharge or in any way discriminate against any employee for exercising any of his rights under this chapter.”
Palermo v. Tension Envelope Corp., 959 S.W.2d 825 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 25× “The court’s order granted summary judgment against Palermo on her claim of discrimination by Tension in retaliation for exercising her rights under the workers’ compensation laws in violation of Section 287.780, RSMo 1994. 1 We reverse and remand.”
Davis v. Richmond Special Road Dist., 649 S.W.2d 252 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 16× “This is an action for money damages for the alleged wrongful discharge of plaintiff by defendant in violation of § 287.780, RSMo 1978. At the close of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for defendant.”
Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. 1998).
· cites it 12× “Section 287.780 provides, "No employer or agent shall discharge or in any way discriminate against any employee for exercising any of his rights under this chapter.”
Arie v. Intertherm, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 142 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 9× “Arie’s petition is based upon an alleged violation of § 287.780 RSMo.1978, an action under the statute lies only if an employee is discharged “discriminatorily” 3 by reason of exercising his or her rights under the Worker’s Compensation Law, and a plaintiff seeking recovery…”
Reed v. Sale Mem'l Hosp. & Clinic, 698 S.W.2d 931 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 11× “Section 287.780, RSMo 1978. A jury awarded plaintiff $22,500 in actual damages and $245,000 in punitive damages.”
Wyman v. Missouri Dep't of Mental Health, 376 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 11× “1 Wyman’s retaliatory discharge claims against the Department are based on § 287.780, 2 which provides: No employer or agent shall discharge or in any way discriminate against any employee for exercising any of his rights under this chapter.”
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.