Will Schmitt

WSCHMITT@NEWS-LEADER.COM

JEFFERSON CITY—Legislation making it more difficult to prove employment discrimination led to a confrontation between a Missouri NAACP leader and the chair of a House committee during a hearing Monday evening.

Rep. Kevin Austin, R-Springfield, is one of five sponsors of similar bills to change the state's rules on discriminatory employment practices by raising the standard of proof, redefining what is meant by "employer" and asking Missouri courtrooms to abide by federal case law as opposed to previous state findings. The bill also would cap how much money successful plaintiffs could receive and offer immunity for non-employers.

Currently, a plaintiff alleging discriminatory wrongful termination under the Missouri Human Rights Act must prove that their ability, age, race, religion or sex was a "contributing factor" to their firing.

The proposed bill would demand more evidence from those who file suits by requiring "but...for" causation. To use the previous example, plaintiffs arguing that they were discriminated against would have to prove that but for their race, they wouldn't have been fired. Essentially, the bill would require plaintiffs to prove that membership in a protected class was the main motivating factor in their dismissal.

Austin told the House Special Committee on Litigation Reform his bill is intended to bring Missouri in line with the federal Civil Rights Act, which uses a "motivating factor" standard. Through further testimony, the committee eventually reached the conclusion that the bill's "but...for" standard was higher than the "motivating factor" used in federal law.

Austin told the News-Leader his bill would bring Missouri law in line with how it was intended to be interpreted, and he and others in support of the bill testified that it would increase fairness and balance in the legal system.

Springfield attorney Travis Elliott said most employment discrimination claims used to be filed in federal court, but the pendulum had swung to the point where most such cases his firm handled were filed in state court. He said he was not in favor of discrimination and added that the bill would increase the predictability of the legal system.

In addition to discussing the legislation's nuance and weighing its merits, the hearing was an opportunity for the committee's three Democrats — who oppose the legislation — to grill Austin, rake supporters over the coals and prod opposing witnesses to provide more information.

Rep. Steven Roberts, D-St. Louis, quizzed Austin on why he wanted to abandon existing Missouri case law and defer to U.S. judges, inverting the usual paradigm in which a Republican spurns the federal government while a Democrat defends. Roberts also wondered whether the timing was "insensitive" due to February's status as Black History Month.

Sheree Brewer, a mail carrier in Florissant, said she opposed the bill because it would empower workplace bullies. She later told reporters she had sued the U.S. Postal Service after a fellow employee was repeatedly allowed to display racially inflammatory material at work, and that the lawsuit was still ongoing in federal court after several years.

Anne Schiavone, a Kansas City attorney, said heightening the standard to prove discrimination as the bill would do makes it more difficult to shield otherwise protected classes. And Paul Bullman, another Kansas City attorney, argued that the bill could provide civil immunity in cases where discrimination wasn't found to be "offensive enough."

The discussion reached its emotional peak near the end, after representatives of public school districts, the University of Missouri System, Washington University in St. Louis, the Associated Industries of Missouri and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce testified in favor of the bill.

Nimrod "Rod" Chapel, president of the NAACP's Missouri chapter, started speaking by referring to previous supporting testimony and saying that these groups were "in favor of expanding discrimination."

Committee chair Rep. Bill Lant, R-Pineville, asked Chapel to contain his remarks to the bill.

"Oh, but I am. Because this is nothing but Jim Crow," Chapel replied. "This is nothing but Jim Crow. You cannot legalize discrimination on an individual basis and call it anything else. Missouri would take a step backwards."

Chapel started to describe how, in his words, Missouri was a laughingstock — citing the unrest in Ferguson after the shooting of Michael Brown and the unrest at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Lant turned off Chapel's mic.

The committee chair then asked for the next witness and threatened to cancel the hearing despite the protests of Chapel and Rep. Gina Mitten, the committee's ranking Democrat.

After the hearing, Mitten remarked to the News-Leader the only witness who was not allowed to finish testifying was also the only black man to testify and noted that Lant had similarly prevented a black man from speaking by not allowing questions from Rep. Clem Smith, D-St. Louis County, in 2016.

The irony was not lost on Chapel, who said afterward that he had more to say about the bill itself had he been allowed to continue.

In a statement released later Monday night, Mitten called Lant's behavior "unprofessional and racist."

"Jim Crow is alive and well in Missouri, and Rep. Lant just proved it," Mitten said.

Lant waved the News-Leader away after the hearing. "I'm sorry, I have nothing to say to you."

After the mic was cut

Representatives of Empower Missouri and PROMO, which advocate for low-income and LGBT Missourians, respectively, were allowed to testify in opposition to the legislation.

These two groups scheduled a joint press conference with the Missouri NAACP on Tuesday to call attention to Lant's decision to cut off Chapel. They issued a joint news release to say they "strongly object" to Chapel's silencing and pointed out that they had been allowed the full five minutes allotted to witnesses.

Chapel and Roberts, the Democratic representative from St. Louis, collaborated to draft a news release of their own Tuesday

“Mr. Chapel and I were the only African-American attorneys in the hearing and the only individuals who can personally relate to how this legislation will directly impact our communities in a disproportionate way," Roberts said. "It is appalling that he was denied the opportunity to express his concerns.”

Chapel said in the release that he "hoped to have a real discussion on the effects of legalizing individual discrimination," but "The Chair's refusal to let me speak ensured that not only my voice, but all voices of those protected by antidiscrimination laws in the state were silenced."

In a third news release, members of the Missouri Legislative Black Caucus also criticized Lant's actions.

"I find it troubling that they are already using this power to silence voices of dissent," said Rep. Alan Green, D-Florissant, who chairs the Black Caucus. "The ignorance of their actions is highlighted by the fact that they are attacking civil rights in the middle of Black History Month and this insensitivity seems completely lost on them."

The press conference was scheduled for 11 a.m. in the Capitol.

This developing news story was first published Monday night and will continue to be updated Tuesday as more information becomes available.