Corporations Owned or Operated by Religious Organizations Exempt From MHRA

Jeanette Layton originally filed a complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, alleging age discrimination against Mercy Health and Mercy Hospitals East Communities. After Layton made a timely request for a right-to-sue letter, the Commission responded instead that they lacked jurisdiction because Mercy Health was operated by the Roman Catholic church, and thus was exempt as a religious organization employer under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Layton then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Commission to rescind closure of its file and to issue Layton a notice of right-to-sue. The circuit court granted the writ. The Commission and Mercy Health appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment ordering the Commission to issue Layton a right-to-sue letter and to close its proceedings relating to the complaint after the 180-day period had passed.

At the direction of the Court of Appeals, the circuit court commenced bifurcated proceedings, to first determine whether Mercy Health was operated by a religious organization, and therefore exempt from MHRA coverage. Mercy then moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a corporation operated by a religious organization, they were excluded from the statute's coverage. Summary judgment was granted, and this appeal followed.

The appeals court noted that the term “employer” under the Missouri Human Rights Act does not include corporations and associations owned or operated by religious or sectarian organizations. The court emphasized that, a 2017 amendment to the MHRA which changed the operative language from "owned and operated" to "owned or operated”, was critical to the decision. This amendment was adopted by the legislature after the Missouri Supreme Court decision in Farrow v. Saint Francis Med Ctr., which had held that non-profit corporations cannot be “owned” under Missouri law..

Because there was no dispute that Mercy Health was operated by the Roman Catholic church, there was no genuine material issue of fact, and the appeals court upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment.