Missouri

State constitutional guarantees regarding right to education

• The Missouri Constitution establishes a right to “free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state” at or under 21 years of age. (See Mo. Const. Art. IX § 1(a) (“A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.”).) 

• However, the constitutional provision and the statutes effectuating it provide only that “a public school . . . must provide a free education, and cannot deprive a student of the right to access that education without due process.” (Borishkevich v. Springfield Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 541 F. Supp. 3d 969, 985 (W.D. Mo. 2021).) In other words, the constitutional right is preserved so long as an individual is “always allowed to attend school.” (Borishkevich v. Springfield Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 541 F. Supp. 3d 969, 985 (W.D. Mo. 2021).)

• Case law and legislative history defining and interpreting the right to education

• There is no “fundamental right against intentional failure to instruct,” nor any “educational malpractice claim,” nor any right to “meaningful access to public education” in Missouri. (Id. at *2, 5 (citing Dallas Airmotive v. Flightsafety Int’l, 277 S.W.3d 696, 700, 701 (Mo. App. 2008)).)

State constitutional protections regarding non-discrimination and equity

• The Missouri Constitution’s equal protection and due process provisions have been invoked in efforts to protect education rights, but each has been deemed coextensive with its federal counterpart. (See J.P. v. Belton Sch. Dist., No. 4:20-CV-00189-NKL, 2021 WL 5541782, at 4 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 18, 2021) (“‘Article I § 2 of the Missouri Constitution, which states that all persons are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law, is coextensive with the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.’” (citing State v. Young, 362 S.W.3d 386, 396 (Mo. banc 2012); J.P., 2021 WL 5541782, at 4 (“Article I § 10 of the Missouri Constitution provides the same procedural and substantive due process rights provided under the United States Constitution.” (citing Bromwell v. Nixon, 361 S.W.3d 393, 400 (Mo. banc 2012)).)

Other relevant state constitutional civil rights protections

State law equivalents to Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, and the Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) 

Additional state civil rights protections that go beyond federal requirements (e.g., protections for LGBTQ+ students, multilingual learners, undocumented students)

State law protections regarding color of law or pattern/practice liability for law enforcement in schools

Anti-discrimination protections under state human rights statutes

• Missouri expressly prohibits discrimination in education on the basis of “the individual’s race, color, religion, gender, age or national origin” by any “entity accepting a grant” for assistance with English-as-a-second-language programs.

• Likewise, Missouri prohibits discrimination in charter school admissions “based on race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, income level,” and, with certain exceptions, “proficiency in the English language . . . .”

• Missouri additionally prohibits “discriminat[ion] against any person on the basis of a religious viewpoint or religious expression,” going so far as to expressly permit students to “pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in nonreligious activities or expression, provided that such religious express or religious activities are not disruptive of scheduled instructional time or other educational activities and do not impede access to school facilities or mobility on school premises.”

Private right of action provisions under state civil rights and human rights statutes

• The Missouri Human Rights Act provides some protections, including a right of action “based on disability discrimination in public accommodations, including Missouri public schools  . . . .”

  • However, the Missouri Supreme Court recently held that “sex” in the statutes refers to biological classifications of male or female—such that they do not cover claims based on gender identity.

Identify whether state anti-discrimination laws also prohibit discrimination caused by disparate impact. If yes, does the state law allow a private right of action for disparate impact claims?

• No, Missouri state laws not coextensive with federal constitutional rights do not appear to recognize claims based on disparate treatment.

Is the right provided by state law conferred on the student, parent/guardian, or both? In other words, who can bring a claim under this law?

• Parents or guardians may bring actions on behalf of their minor children.

Does the specified law or policy provide protections against retaliation? What are the elements of a retaliation claim? Are protections against retaliation clearly spelled out in the law or policy?

• The MHRA protects against retaliation. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.070 (“It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or place of public accommodation . . . [t]o 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.”).)

•  To make such a claim, one must show that “(1) [t]hey complained of discrimination; (2) [defendant] took adverse action against them; and (3) a causal relationship existed between the complaint and the adverse action.” (Holmes v. Kansas City Pub. Sch. Dist., 571 S.W.3d 602, 611 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).)

Statute of limitations for filing education-related state civil rights complaints (or state civil rights complaints broadly) or state human rights complaints?

• There is a two-year statute of limitations for discrimination claims under the MHRA. ( See J.B. v. Maximus Fed. Services, Inc., No. 4:22-CV-00554-RK, 2022 WL 16951667, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2022) (“Missouri law establishes a two-year statute of limitations for discrimination claims under the MHRA.”).)

Are there areas where the state laws provide more protections than federal law? What are those areas? 

• The Missouri constitutional right to “free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state” at or under 21 years of age” offers more protection than federal law, but as discussed above, it is not a particularly robust protection.