RETALIATION DEMAND LETTER

Missouri Human Rights Act and Anti-Retaliation Claims

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, Missouri ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[Missouri Bar Number]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [recipient_email]

[Date]

[Employer Contact Name]
[Title]
[Company Legal Name]
[Company Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Copy to:
[General Counsel]
[EPLI Carrier, if known]

Re: Unlawful Retaliation Against [Client Full Name]
MCHR Charge No.: [XXXXX] (if applicable)
EEOC Charge No.: [XXX-XXXX-XXXXX] (if applicable)
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO MO. REV. STAT. SECTION 435.014

Dear [Mr./Ms./Mx. Last Name]:

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client") in connection with claims of unlawful retaliation against [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]" or "the Company"). Please direct all future communications regarding this matter to our office.

Our client engaged in legally protected activity by [briefly describe protected activity], and [Company Short Name] retaliated by [briefly describe adverse action]. This retaliation violates Missouri law and exposes the Company to substantial liability for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

We write to demand immediate resolution of this matter and to advise that we are prepared to file suit if a satisfactory response is not received.

I. MISSOURI-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA)

The Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 213.010 et seq., provides comprehensive protection against discrimination and retaliation in employment.

Anti-Retaliation Provision: Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 213.070 makes it unlawful to retaliate or discriminate against any person because that person:
- Has opposed any practice prohibited by the MHRA;
- Has filed a complaint with the MCHR;
- Has testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted under the MHRA.

Protected Classes Under MHRA:
- Race
- Color
- Religion
- National origin
- Ancestry
- Sex
- Disability
- Age (40-69)
- Familial status (in housing)

Administrative Exhaustion: A charge must be filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory or retaliatory act. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 213.075.

Statute of Limitations: After receiving a Right to Sue letter, the plaintiff has 90 days to file suit in court. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 213.111.

Damages Under MHRA (Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 213.111):
- Back pay
- Compensatory damages
- Punitive damages
- Attorney's fees and costs
- Injunctive relief

Damage Caps Based on Employer Size:
| Number of Employees | Cap on Compensatory + Punitive Damages |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------|
| 25-100 | $50,000 |
| 101-200 | $100,000 |
| 201-500 | $200,000 |
| 500+ | $500,000 |

B. Missouri Whistleblower's Protection Act (Public Employees)

Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 105.055 protects state employees who report wrongdoing.

Protected Activity:
- Reporting to a public body a violation of law, rule, or regulation
- Reporting mismanagement or gross waste of public funds
- Reporting abuse of authority
- Reporting a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety

Statute of Limitations: Two (2) years from the date of the violation.

Note: This statute applies only to public employees. Private sector employees must rely on the common law public policy exception.

C. Missouri Common Law Public Policy Exception

Missouri recognizes a common law cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

Key Case Law:
- Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. 2010) (recognizing public policy exception)
- Margiotta v. Christian Hosp. Ne. Nw., 315 S.W.3d 342 (Mo. 2010) (discussing requirements for public policy claims)
- Crabtree v. Bugby, 967 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. 1998) (early recognition of public policy exception)

Requirements for Public Policy Claim:
1. A clear mandate of public policy
2. The employee's conduct furthered that policy
3. The employer discharged the employee in violation of that policy
4. The discharge caused damages

Statute of Limitations: Five (5) years for contract claims. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 516.120.

D. Workers' Compensation Retaliation

Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 287.780 prohibits retaliation against employees who file workers' compensation claims.

Remedies:
- Lost wages
- Reinstatement
- Actual damages
- Attorney's fees and costs

II. NATURE OF THE PROTECTED ACTIVITY

Our client engaged in one or more forms of protected activity that triggered [Company Short Name]'s unlawful retaliation:

A. Type of Protected Activity

[Check all that apply]

Opposition to Discrimination/Harassment (MHRA)
- [ ] Complained internally about discrimination based on [race / color / religion / national origin / ancestry / sex / disability / age]
- [ ] Complained internally about harassment or hostile work environment
- [ ] Reported discrimination or harassment to human resources
- [ ] Filed a formal internal complaint or grievance

Participation in Discrimination Proceedings (MHRA)
- [ ] Filed a Charge of Discrimination with MCHR or EEOC
- [ ] Participated in an MCHR investigation
- [ ] Testified or provided information in a discrimination proceeding
- [ ] Served as a witness in a co-worker's discrimination case

Whistleblowing (Common Law/Statutory)
- [ ] Reported violations of law to management
- [ ] Reported violations to a government agency
- [ ] Reported safety violations or hazards
- [ ] Reported fraud or financial misconduct
- [ ] Refused to participate in illegal activity

Workers' Compensation Activity (Section 287.780)
- [ ] Filed a workers' compensation claim
- [ ] Testified in a workers' compensation proceeding
- [ ] Sought medical treatment for a work injury

Other Protected Activity
- [ ] Engaged in concerted activity protected by the NLRA
- [ ] Reported OSHA violations
- [ ] [Other: describe]

B. Timeline of Protected Activity

C. Detailed Narrative

On [Date], our client [describe the protected activity in detail]:

[Provide comprehensive narrative including:
- What our client observed, learned, or experienced that prompted the protected activity
- The specific concerns raised or actions taken
- To whom the concerns were raised (names, titles)
- The manner of reporting (verbal, written, formal complaint)
- Any response received from management or HR
- Any instructions given to our client regarding the matter
- Any witnesses to the protected activity]

Our client's [complaint / report / testimony / action] was made in good faith and based on a reasonable belief that [the conduct complained of was unlawful / the information reported was accurate / the activity opposed was illegal].

III. THE RETALIATORY CONDUCT

A. Adverse Employment Actions

Following our client's protected activity, [Company Short Name] subjected [him/her/them] to the following retaliatory adverse employment actions:

[Check all applicable actions and provide details]

Termination/Constructive Discharge
- [ ] Our client was terminated on [Date]
- [ ] Our client was forced to resign due to intolerable conditions on [Date]

Demotion/Reassignment
- [ ] Demoted from [Former Position] to [New Position] on [Date]
- [ ] Reassigned to less desirable duties/location/shift on [Date]
- [ ] Stripped of [responsibilities / authority / direct reports] on [Date]

Compensation Reductions
- [ ] Salary reduced from $[Amount] to $[Amount] on [Date]
- [ ] Bonus denied or reduced on [Date]
- [ ] Hours reduced from [X] to [X] per week on [Date]

Performance/Discipline
- [ ] Received negative performance review on [Date] (previously had positive reviews)
- [ ] Placed on performance improvement plan (PIP) on [Date]
- [ ] Received written warning on [Date] for [pretextual reason]
- [ ] Suspended [with/without] pay from [Date] to [Date]

Hostile Treatment/Exclusion
- [ ] Excluded from meetings, communications, or decisions
- [ ] Subjected to increased scrutiny and micromanagement
- [ ] Isolated from coworkers or ostracized
- [ ] Given impossible tasks or set up to fail

Other Adverse Actions
- [ ] Denied promotion to [Position] on [Date]
- [ ] Negative reference provided to prospective employer
- [ ] [Other: describe]

B. Timeline of Retaliation

C. Evidence of Causal Connection

The causal connection between our client's protected activity and the adverse actions is demonstrated by:

1. Temporal Proximity

The adverse actions began just [X days/weeks] after our client's protected activity. Missouri courts recognize that close temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse action supports an inference of causation. See Griffith v. City of Des Peres, 827 S.W.2d 195 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

2. Knowledge

The decision-makers who took adverse action against our client had knowledge of [his/her/their] protected activity.

3. Pattern of Antagonism

Following the protected activity, our client experienced a sudden shift in treatment from positive to hostile.

4. Pretext

The reasons offered by [Company Short Name] for the adverse actions are pretextual.

IV. LEGAL CLAIMS

A. Missouri Human Rights Act - Retaliation

Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 213.070

Our client is entitled to protection under the MHRA because [he/she/they]:

[Select applicable theory]

• [ ] Opposition Theory: Opposed a practice prohibited by the MHRA, specifically discrimination or harassment based on [protected class].

• [ ] Participation Theory: Filed a complaint with the MCHR, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the MHRA.

The protected activity is documented as follows: [describe documentation].

B. Common Law Wrongful Discharge - Public Policy Exception

Our client's termination violated the well-established public policy of Missouri as expressed in [cite specific statute or constitutional provision].

As established in Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst., P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. 2010), Missouri recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge when an employee is terminated in violation of a clear mandate of public policy.

C. Workers' Compensation Retaliation

Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 287.780

Our client was discharged or discriminated against for [filing a workers' compensation claim / seeking treatment for a work injury / testifying in a workers' compensation proceeding].

D. Federal Claims (If Applicable)

[Include if federal claims are being asserted alongside Missouri claims]

• [ ] Title VII Anti-Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-3(a)
• [ ] 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (Race-Based Retaliation)
• [ ] ADA Anti-Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. Section 12203
• [ ] ADEA Anti-Retaliation, 29 U.S.C. Section 623(d)
• [ ] FLSA Anti-Retaliation, 29 U.S.C. Section 215(a)(3)

V. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Lost Wages (Back Pay)

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay

B. Compensatory Damages

For emotional distress and other non-economic harm:

• [Describe emotional impact]
• [Describe physical manifestations]
• [Describe impact on daily life]

Compensatory damages: $[Amount]

C. Punitive Damages

For willful and malicious conduct:

Punitive damages: $[Amount]

Note on MHRA Damage Caps: Combined compensatory and punitive damages under the MHRA are capped based on employer size (see Section I.A above).

D. Interest

Pre-judgment interest as provided by Missouri law.

E. Attorney's Fees and Costs

Missouri law provides for recovery of reasonable attorney's fees in MHRA cases.

Estimated fees through trial: $[Amount]
Estimated costs: $[Amount]

F. Summary of Damages

VI. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based on the foregoing, we demand that [Company Short Name] pay $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the unlawful retaliation against our client.

Settlement Terms

In addition to the monetary payment, settlement must include:

• [ ] Neutral Reference: [Company Short Name] will provide only dates of employment and final position
• [ ] Personnel File: Expungement of all documents related to the pretextual discipline and termination
• [ ] Non-Disparagement: Mutual non-disparagement provisions
• [ ] Confidentiality: Subject to negotiation
• [ ] Unemployment: [Company Short Name] will not contest unemployment benefits

VII. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond to this demand in writing within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

Critical Deadlines:
- MCHR 180-day filing deadline: [Date]
- 90-day deadline to file after Right to Sue: [Date]
- EEOC filing deadline (if applicable): [Date]
- Common law claims (5 years): [Date]

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we will file suit in [Missouri Circuit Court, [County] County] or [United States District Court, Eastern/Western District of Missouri] asserting:

1. Retaliation in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 213.070
2. Common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy
3. Workers' compensation retaliation, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 287.780 [if applicable]
4. [Additional claims as applicable]

VIII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION

This letter constitutes formal notice of litigation. [Company Short Name] must immediately implement a litigation hold to preserve all documents and ESI relevant to our client's employment, the protected activity, and all adverse actions.

Spoliation of evidence may result in sanctions and adverse inferences under Missouri law.

IX. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter is a confidential settlement communication protected by Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 435.014 and applicable state law.

We are prepared to discuss resolution of this matter at your earliest convenience. Please contact me to arrange a settlement conference.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]

[Attorney Signature Block]

Enclosures:
- [ ] MCHR Charge (if applicable)
- [ ] EEOC Charge (if applicable)
- [ ] Right to Sue Notice (if applicable)
- [ ] Authorization to Represent

cc: [Client Name] (via email)
[File]

MISSOURI-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

Short MCHR Filing Deadline: The 180-day deadline to file with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights is strictly enforced. This is shorter than the EEOC's deadline in non-deferral states, so practitioners must act quickly.

90-Day Post-Right to Sue Deadline: After receiving a Right to Sue letter, plaintiffs have only 90 days to file in court. This is a very short window that requires immediate action.

Damage Caps: The MHRA imposes damage caps on combined compensatory and punitive damages based on employer size. These caps are significant limitations on recovery and should be factored into settlement strategy.

Public Policy Exception Development: Missouri's recognition of the common law public policy exception has evolved through cases like Fleshner and Margiotta. The exception requires a clear mandate of public policy, typically found in statutes or regulations.

No Private Sector Whistleblower Statute: Missouri's Whistleblower's Protection Act (Section 105.055) applies only to public employees. Private sector employees must rely on the common law public policy exception for whistleblower-type claims.

MHRA Amendment (2017): The 2017 amendments to the MHRA changed the causation standard from "contributing factor" to "motivating factor" and added the damage caps. Be aware of which version applies based on the date of the conduct.

Workers' Compensation Protection: Section 287.780 provides explicit protection against retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims, which can be a strong claim in addition to other theories.