2024 Missouri Labor & Employment Year End Review

Kansas City, Mo. (February 26, 2025) - There were several major developments in Missouri labor and employment law during the past previous year, including minimum wage rate changes, revisions to Missouri’s paid sick time statutes, and recent Court of Appeals decisions.

Minimum Wage Rate Changes

The minimum wage rate for private businesses increased from $12.30 per hour to $13.75 per hour, effective January 1, 2025. The minimum wage does not apply to retail and service businesses with gross annual sales of less than $500,000 or to public employers.

Covered employers are required to pay tipped employees at least 50 percent of the minimum wage, $6.875 per hour, plus any amount necessary to bring the employee’s total compensation to a minimum of $13.75 per hour.

Revisions to Missouri’s Paid Sick Time Statutes

On November 5, 2024, Missouri voters approved Proposition A, providing changes to the state’s minimum wage (discussed above) and paid sick time benefits to employees. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.600 – 290.642. 

Earned paid sick time is defined as  “time that is compensated at the same hourly rate and with the same benefits, including health care benefits, as the employee normally earns during hours worked….”  Earned sick time is accrued as follows:

• Employees of an employer with fifteen or more employees shall accrue a minimum of one hour of earned paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, but such employees are not entitled to use more than 56 hours of earned paid sick time per year (unless the employer selects a higher limit).
   
• Employees of an employer with fewer than fifteen employees shall accrue a minimum of one hour of earned paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, but such employees are not entitled to use more than 40 hours of earned paid sick time per year (unless the employer selects a higher limit).
   
• Earned paid sick time begins to accrue at the commencement of employment or May 1, 2025, whichever is later. An employee is entitled to use earned paid sick time as it is accrued. An employer may provide all earned paid sick time that an employee is expected to accrue in a year at the beginning of the year.
   
• Employees who are exempt from overtime requirements under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act will be assumed to work forty hours in each work week for purposes of earned paid sick time accrual unless their normal work week is less than forty hours, in which case earned paid sick time accrues based upon that normal work week.
   
• Up to eighty hours of earned paid sick time shall be carried over to the following year if the employee has any unused accrued earned paid sick time at the end of the year, but this law does not require an employer to permit an employee to use more than the applicable number of hours of earned paid sick time per year as set forth in subsections 1 and 2 of this section. Alternatively, in lieu of carryover an employer may pay an employee for unused earned paid sick time at the end of a year which could be carried over and provide the employee with an amount of paid sick time that meets or exceeds the statutory requirements that is available for the employee’s immediate use at the beginning of the subsequent year.
   
• An employee transferred to a separate division, entity, or location is entitled to all earned paid sick time accrued at the prior division, entity, or location and to use all earned paid sick time.
   
• When there is a separation from employment and the employee is rehired within nine months of separation by the same employer, previously accrued earned paid sick time that had not been used shall be reinstated and the employee shall be entitled to use accrued earned paid sick time and accrue additional earned paid sick time if rehired. 
   
• When a different employer succeeds or takes the place of an existing employer, employees who remain employed by the successor employer are entitled to all earned paid sick time they previously accrued.
   
• At its discretion, an employer may loan earned paid sick time to an employee in advance of accrual by such employee.

Employers are required to give employees a written notice about earned paid sick time within fourteen calendar days of the commencement of employment or on April 15, 2025, whichever is later. The notice shall be provided by the employer to the employee on a single piece of paper, at least 8.5 x 11, in no less than 14-point font and must include the following information:

• Beginning May 1, 2025, employees accrue and are entitled to earned paid sick time at the rate one hour of earned paid sick time for every 30 hours of work, and may use earned paid sick time, subject to the limits and terms under sections 290.600 – 290.642 of Missouri law;
   
• It is prohibited for an employer to take retaliatory personnel action against employees who request or use earned paid sick time as allowed by law;
   
• Employees have the right to bring a civil action if earned paid sick time as required by the law is denied by the employer or the employee is subjected to retaliatory personnel action for exercising the employee’s rights;
   
• The contact information for the department.

Additionally, as of April 15, 2025, employers must display a poster in a conspicuous place stating, “employees accrue and are entitled to earned paid sick time at the rate one hour earned paid sick time for every 30 hours of work, and may use earned paid sick time, subject to the limits and terms under sections 290.600 – 290.642 of Missouri law.”

Employers are required to retain records documenting hours worked by employees and earned paid sick time taken by employees for a period of not less than three years.

Any employer who violates or fails to comply with the statutory requirements can be guilty of a class C misdemeanor; but an employer that willfully violates the notice and posting requirements shall be guilty of an infraction. Each day of violation or failure to comply and each employee affected shall constitute a separate offense.

Employees can pursue their rights in court for violation of this law provided the action is filed within three years of accrual of the cause of action. The employee can recover the full amount of any unpaid earned sick time plus any actual damages suffered, an additional amount equal to twice any unpaid earned sick time as liquidated damages, costs, fees, and other relief including back pay and reinstatement.

Significant Missouri Appellate Decisions From 2024

In Matthews v. Harley-Davidson, 685 S.W.3d 360, 363, the Court of Appeals vacated the circuit court’s judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims against defendants for creating a hostile work environment and for aiding and abetting under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The appellate court held that “while the petition did not specifically allege [plaintiffs] witnessed or experienced” harassment, the very nature of the alleged harassment “targeted and preyed” on all protected employees. The court also provided guidance regarding the ultimate facts necessary to support an aiding and abetting claim under the MHRA, stating:

Section 876(b) of the Restatement states: “For harm resulting to a third person from the tortious conduct of another, one is subject to liability if he . . . knows that the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself.” “The assistance of or participation by the defendant may be so slight that he is not liable for the act of the other.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876 cmt. d (1979). To determine whether a defendant provided substantial encouragement or assistance, the Court considers "the nature of the act encouraged, the amount of assistance given by the defendant, his presence or absence at the time of the tort, his relation to the other[,] and his state of mind . . . ." Id.

In Caldwell v. Unifirst Corp., 694 S.W.3d 507, 521, the defendants argued that the plaintiff did not meet the statutory definition of “disability” under the MHRA because he could not perform the essential functions of his job, which included lifting 80 pounds, with or without a reasonable accommodation. The court noted that the employer’s view as to which functions are essential is only one factor to be considered and the court may also consider: (1) the employer's judgment; (2) written job descriptions prepared before the employer began advertising or interviewing for the position; (3) the amount of time spent performing the function; (4) the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function; and (5) the past or current work experience of employees in similar jobs. The Court of Appeals held that this plaintiff’s “request for a helper” was reasonable and could have allowed him to perform his job’s essential functions. Based on the plaintiff’s testimony that the lifting requirement was not an essential function, and that he could have performed tasks with a helper, the Court revised the trial court’s decision overturning the jury verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.

For more information on these developments, contact the author or editor of this alert. Visit our Labor & Employment Practice page for additional alerts in this area.

Author:

Blake M. Edwards, Partner

Editor:

Alan L. Rupe, Co-Managing Partner, Wichita and Kansas City