A jury's finding of discrimination in the case of a female grocery store employee who claimed she was terminated for being ugly reveals the defendant's actions must have been deeply egregious for the plaintiff to overcome Missouri's employer-friendly labor statutes, according to one law professor.
The cashier was awarded $100,000 by a Greene County jury in her claim against a Country Fresh store in a finding that she was discriminated against as a member of a protected class.
She claimed discrimination because she was treated differently than male employees. The court heard she was described as "hideous" by one staff member, among other claims.
Country Fresh argued the former employee was terminated after complaints from customers.
Missouri is an "at will" state, which means an employee can be fired for any reason, including their looks, if it is not due to them being a member of a protected class.
The state also does not align with federal law, as laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly three decades ago, which states discrimination is successfully argued where there is a "mixed motive" behind termination.
Missouri is the only state that explicitly introduced a law, in 2015, that states an employee can lose an action if the defendant successfully argues there was another reason for the sacking, professor Rigel Olivera, of the University of Missouri Law School, told the St. Louis Record.
"Appearance is not a protected class but being singled out based on the fact that she was a woman is," said professor Olivera. "It must have been pretty bad, pretty nasty."
Olivera added: "I do not think this is going anywhere on appeal because this was a jury finding of fact."
Under federal law, even if there are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for termination of employment, an employee wins, and the issue then comes down to the amount of damages. In Missouri, the plaintiff has to show the single motive was illegitimate, that is discrimination against a protected class, Olivera explained.
Most plaintiff attorneys want the cases heard in federal court, but preferred a state venue in this action, which means they were highly confident about the strength of the complaint, the law professor said.