Missouri Workplace Harassment Laws: 6-Employee Rule, 180 Days (2026)

Workplace harassment is unlawful in Missouri through the Missouri Human Rights Act, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual "with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability (RSMo § 213.055.1(1)(a)). The Act has no separate harassment clause; the Missouri Commission on Human Rights' rule states that "Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of Chapter 213, RSMo" and defines quid pro quo and hostile-environment sexual harassment (8 CSR 60-3.040(17)).

The Act covers employers with six or more employees, and an individual employed by an employer is not an "employer" under it (§ 213.010(8)). A complaint to the Commission is due within 180 days of the alleged act, a jurisdictional condition for any lawsuit (§ 213.075.1). For other states, see workplace harassment laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-20. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Missouri state law on workplace harassment by employers, supervisors and coworkers under the Missouri Human Rights Act, RSMo chapter 213 (chiefly §§ 213.010, 213.055, 213.070, 213.075, 213.101 and 213.111), and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights' rules in 8 CSR 60-3. It does not cover wrongful firing or the full complaint and lawsuit procedure (see Missouri wrongful termination), damages estimates, criminal harassment or stalking, harassment outside employment, local ordinances, or federal-employee procedure.

Missouri harassment rules at a glance

What Missouri law prohibits

Section 213.055.1(1)(a) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

"To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability;" (RSMo § 213.055.1(1)(a))

The word "harass" does not appear in the employment sections of Chapter 213. The harassment framework comes from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, which administers the Act. Its rule on sex discrimination states:

"(17) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of Chapter 213, RSMo. (A) Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when-- 1. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; 2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting the individual; or 3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment." (8 CSR 60-3.040(17)(A))

Items 1 and 2 describe quid pro quo harassment; item 3 describes a hostile working environment. The Commission's guidance adds that gender-based harassment without sexual content can also violate the law: "Harassment due to gender is comparable to harassment due to race. If it is severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment, then it can violate the law."

Which Missouri employers are covered

Section 213.010(8) defines an employer as "a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has six or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year," and it "shall include the state, or any political or civil subdivision thereof, or any person employing six or more persons within the state."

The definition then carves out:

• corporations and associations "owned or operated by religious or sectarian organizations";
• the United States and corporations wholly owned by the federal government;
• "An individual employed by an employer";
• an Indian tribe; and
• "A bona fide private membership club, other than a labor organization, that is exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)."

The six-employee threshold is the same for harassment and every other employment claim under the Act. Federal law draws the line higher: Title VII applies to an employer that "has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)).

Contractors, interns and non-employees

The Act's employment prohibitions run to employers and protect "any individual" applicant or employee. Sections 213.010, 213.055 and 213.070 contain no language extending coverage to independent contractors, interns or volunteers, or addressing harassment of an employee by a non-employee such as a customer.

Protected traits

Section 213.055.1(1) lists race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age and disability. Three points narrow or extend that list:

• Age: "'Age', an age of forty or more years but less than seventy years" (§ 213.010(1)). An employee aged 70 or older falls outside the Act's age protection.
• Pregnancy: the Commission treats it as part of sex discrimination: "This includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions."
• Association: § 213.070.1(4) also makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, employment agency, labor organization or place of public accommodation "To discriminate in any manner against any other person because of such person's association with any person protected by this chapter."

Chapter 213's employment sections do not name sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, genetic information, criminal record, military status or hair texture as protected traits.

The Supreme Court of Missouri has addressed a related question. In Lampley v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, 570 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. banc 2019), a gay employee alleged he was harassed because he did not exhibit stereotypical male attributes, and the court reversed a judgment for the Commission and directed that right-to-sue letters issue to him and a coworker. The principal opinion stated that sex discrimination "is prohibited by the Act, and an employee may demonstrate this discrimination through evidence of sexual stereotyping," and that "Sexual orientation is incidental and irrelevant to sex stereotyping." It also stated that whether sexual orientation itself is covered by the Act was not at issue in the case.

The legal standard for a hostile work environment

Chapter 213 does not state a hostile-environment test. It contains no "severe or pervasive" language. The Commission's rule says that in deciding whether conduct is sexual harassment, "the commission will look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred" (8 CSR 60-3.040(17)(B)). The Commission's guidance describes a hostile environment as one where "the sexual conduct is so pervasive or severe that it creates an abusive working environment." That wording is agency guidance, not statute text.

The 2017 amendments (S.B. 43) added causation rules that apply to the whole Act. "The motivating factor" means "the employee's protected classification actually played a role in the adverse action or decision and had a determinative influence on the adverse decision or action" (§ 213.010(19)). In a civil action, the plaintiff bears "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" (§ 213.111.5). Section 213.101.4 "expressly abrogates" Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights and its progeny "as they relate to the contributing factor standard and abandonment of the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green." How courts apply those rules to a hostile-environment claim is a matter of case law that this page does not summarize.

Employer responsibility and the individual harasser

The Commission's rule sets the employer-liability framework for sexual harassment:

"(C) Applying general principles of Chapter 213, RSMo, an employer, employment agency, joint apprenticeship committee or labor organization (hereinafter collectively referred to as employer) is responsible for its acts and those of its agents, employees and supervisory employees with respect to sexual harassment regardless of whether the specific acts complained of were authorized or even forbidden by the employer if the employer knew or should have known of their occurrence." (8 CSR 60-3.040(17)(C))

For harassment by a supervisor, paragraph (D) makes the employer subject to vicarious liability. When no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may raise an affirmative defense with "two necessary elements: a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and b) that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise." The rule adds: "No affirmative defense is available, however, when the supervisor's harassment culminates in a tangible employment action." These are Commission rules, not statute text.

On personal liability, the statute is direct. "An individual employed by an employer" is excluded from the definition of employer (§ 213.010(8)(c)), so a supervisor or coworker is not an employer under the Act. The aiding-and-abetting clause makes it unlawful "for an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or place of public accommodation" to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce prohibited acts (§ 213.070.1(1)); it does not name individual employees.

Section 213.070.2 adds that "This chapter, in addition to chapter 285 and chapter 287, shall provide the exclusive remedy for any and all claims for injury or damages arising out of an employment relationship."

Retaliation for complaining

Section 213.070.1(2) makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, employment agency, labor organization or place of public accommodation "To retaliate or discriminate in any manner against any other person because such person has opposed any practice prohibited by this chapter or because such person has filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding or hearing conducted pursuant to this chapter." How a firing after a complaint fits with Missouri's default employment rule is covered on the Missouri at-will employment page.

Deadlines and where to file

The Missouri Commission on Human Rights takes complaints under the Act. Its intake page states: "Complaints under the Missouri Human Rights Act must be filed with the MCHR within 180 days of the alleged discrimination. Federal law allows 300 days for filing employment discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."

• Agency deadline: "As a jurisdictional condition precedent to filing a civil action under this chapter, any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice shall make, sign and file with the commission a verified complaint in writing, within one hundred eighty days of the alleged act of discrimination" (§ 213.075.1). The Act sets no separate deadline for harassment.
• Federal filing counts: a complaint filed with the EEOC or another federal agency with which the Commission has a work-sharing or deferral agreement, or with a certified local commission, "shall be deemed filed with the commission on the date that such complaint is received by such federal agency or local commission" (§ 213.075.2).
• Court deadline: a lawsuit "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" (§ 213.111.1). The right-to-sue letter issues on written request when the Commission has not completed its processing 180 days after the complaint was filed.

The steps between a complaint and a lawsuit are on the Missouri wrongful termination page, which also covers remedies and the damages caps in § 213.111.4. The Missouri employment discrimination settlement calculator is an estimating tool, not a prediction of any outcome.

Training, policies and posters

Chapter 213 contains no requirement that private employers train employees on harassment or adopt a written harassment policy. The Commission's rule requires a poster: "Every employer, labor organization, employment agency, or other business or establishment covered by Chapter 213, RSMo (1986) shall post a commission equal employment poster in a place where other employee notices are posted or in a conspicuous place where employees will have access to it" (8 CSR 60-3.010(1)).

NDAs, confidentiality and arbitration

Chapter 213 contains no provision limiting nondisclosure, confidentiality or nondisparagement terms in harassment agreements or settlements. Its one confidentiality rule covers the Commission's own conciliation process: "Nothing said or done in the course of settlement or conciliation under this section shall be made public or used as evidence in any subsequent proceeding under this chapter, without the written consent of the complainant and respondent" (§ 213.077.1).

Federal law adds limits for sexual harassment disputes: the Speak Out Act makes nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses agreed to before a sexual harassment dispute arises judicially unenforceable where the conduct is alleged to violate federal, tribal or state law, and the Ending Forced Arbitration Act lets the person alleging sexual harassment elect court over a predispute arbitration agreement; the workplace harassment laws hub explains both.

Is workplace bullying illegal in Missouri?

The Missouri Human Rights Act reaches discrimination because of the traits it lists. Chapter 213 contains no provision on general workplace bullying that is not tied to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability.

Orders of protection

Separately from employment law, "Any person who has been subject to domestic violence by a present or former family or household member, or who has been the victim of stalking or sexual assault, may seek relief under sections 455.010 to 455.085 by filing a verified petition" (§ 455.020.1). That route is not specific to the workplace.

Documenting harassment and workplace monitoring

The rules on recording a conversation at work, including one with a harasser, are on the Missouri workplace recording laws page. Employer monitoring of email, devices and workspaces is covered on the Missouri employee monitoring laws page.

Related pages

• Workplace harassment laws by state
• Missouri wrongful termination
• Missouri at-will employment laws
• Missouri employee monitoring laws
• Missouri workplace recording laws

This article provides general legal information about Missouri workplace harassment law under the Missouri Human Rights Act, RSMo chapter 213, and 8 CSR 60-3 as of 2026-10-20. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Missouri or the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.

Last updated: 2026-10-20.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is workplace harassment illegal in Missouri?

The Missouri Human Rights Act bars an employer from discriminating in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability (RSMo § 213.055.1(1)(a)). The Commission's rule, 8 CSR 60-3.040(17), states that harassment on the basis of sex violates Chapter 213.

How many employees does an employer need for the Missouri Human Rights Act to apply?

Six or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year; the state and its political subdivisions are also covered (§ 213.010(8)). Religious organizations' corporations and associations and tax-exempt private membership clubs are excluded.

Can a supervisor be personally liable for harassment in Missouri?

Under § 213.010(8)(c), an individual employed by an employer is not an employer under the Missouri Human Rights Act, and the aiding-and-abetting clause in § 213.070.1(1) reaches employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and places of public accommodation.

How long do you have to file a harassment complaint in Missouri?

A verified complaint must be filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination, as a jurisdictional condition precedent to a civil action (§ 213.075.1). A lawsuit then must be filed within 90 days of the right-to-sue letter and no later than two years after the alleged cause occurred or its reasonable discovery (§ 213.111.1).

Does Missouri law protect against sexual orientation harassment at work?

Chapter 213's employment sections list race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age and disability; they do not name sexual orientation or gender identity as protected traits. In Lampley v. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, 570 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. banc 2019), the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed a judgment for the Commission on a gay employee's complaint that he was harassed for not exhibiting stereotypical male attributes; the principal opinion stated that an employee may demonstrate sex discrimination through evidence of sexual stereotyping and that sexual orientation is incidental and irrelevant to sex stereotyping. It also stated that whether sexual orientation itself is covered by the Act was not at issue.

Is an employer responsible for a supervisor's sexual harassment in Missouri?

Under the Commission's rule, 8 CSR 60-3.040(17)(D), an employer is subject to vicarious liability for sexual harassment by a supervisor. When no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may raise a two-part affirmative defense; no defense is available when the harassment culminates in a tangible employment action.

Does Missouri require sexual harassment training?

Chapter 213 contains no harassment training or written-policy requirement for private employers. The Commission's rule requires covered employers to post its equal employment poster (8 CSR 60-3.010(1)).

Is workplace bullying illegal in Missouri?

The Missouri Human Rights Act reaches discrimination tied to the traits it lists. Chapter 213 contains no provision on general workplace bullying that is unconnected to those traits.