WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1727

Summary — HB 1727: Modifies provisions relating to unlawful discriminatory practices (Missouri)

Note: Multiple states used the bill number “HB 1727” in 2025 for unrelated measures (Arkansas — adult education charter funding; Illinois — pension benefit suspension; Mississippi — appropriations). This summary focuses on the Missouri bill titled “Modifies provisions relating to unlawful discriminatory practices,” which repeals and reenacts parts of Chapter 213, RSMo.

Main purpose / intent

To revise and modernize statutory definitions and certain coverage rules in Missouri’s unlawful discriminatory practices law (Chapter 213, RSMo). The bill repeals selected sections and enacts replacement provisions to clarify terms such as “age,” “because/because of,” “color,” “disability,” “discrimination,” “employer,” and related concepts used in enforcement of civil-rights protections.

Key provisions and changes

  • Repeals and replaces sections 213.010, 213.030, 213.040, 213.045 and 213.070 and adds a new section 213.053 (text for some sections truncated in provided materials).
  • Definitions:
    • “Age”: defined as 40 or older but less than 70, with a statutory exception allowing compulsory retirement at 65 for bona fide executives who meet a pension-benefit threshold (aggregate immediate, nonforfeitable annual retirement benefit of at least $44,000) and other specified criteria.
    • “Because” / “because of”: clarified to mean the protected criterion was the motivating factor in an adverse action.
    • “Color”: explicitly defined to mean skin color, pigmentation, complexion, shade, or tone (distinct from “race”).
    • “Disability”: retained as a broad definition — physical or mental impairment substantially limiting major life activities, being regarded as having such impairment, or a record of impairment — and expressly excludes current illegal use/addiction to controlled substances while preserving protection for persons in or successfully completing rehabilitation or wrongly perceived as using controlled substances.
    • “Discrimination”: defined to include unfair or differential treatment based on a person’s presumed or assumed characteristics (color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age as it relates to employment, disability, or familial status for housing), regardless of whether the presumption is correct.
  • “Employer” definition: sets the employer coverage threshold at six or more employees for each working day in 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year; clarifies exclusions (federal government, certain corporations, Indian tribes, bona fide private membership clubs, etc.).
  • Other definitions updated or renumbered (e.g., “places of public accommodation,” “familial status,” “labor organization,” and administrative terms such as “Commission” and “Executive Director” reference the Missouri Commission on Human Rights).

Who is affected

  • Employers and employees throughout Missouri (including government employers where specified), especially employers meeting the 6+ employee threshold.
  • Housing providers, places of public accommodation, labor organizations, and other persons or entities covered under Chapter 213.
  • The Missouri Commission on Human Rights, which enforces Chapter 213, and litigants who bring discrimination complaints.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Bill text indicates repeal/reenactment language and new section additions.
  • Legislative actions provided are mixed across jurisdictions; for the Missouri measure the bill was introduced and assigned, read, and went through committee processes. According to the compiled timeline in the materials, the bill had activity in March 2025 (readings and amendments), and an entry shows “WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR” on 2025‑04‑14. Status should be confirmed with the Missouri General Assembly clerk for the most current disposition.
  • Companion bill: SB 201 (listed as related).

Potential impact

  • Clarifies legal standards and definitions used in discrimination claims, which may affect how claims are pleaded, investigated, and adjudicated.
  • The employer-size threshold and definitional clarifications could alter which employers are covered and how protections apply (including treatment of persons in recovery from substance misuse).
  • May change administrative interpretations and enforcement practices of the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.

For an authoritative record of final text, votes, amendments, and current status, consult the Missouri General Assembly bill page or the Missouri Secretary of State.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.