Establishes provisions relating to discriminatory employment practices and discriminatory housing practices based on a person's private medical history or medical choices
HB 1058 adds two new sections to Missouri’s human rights law in Chapter 213 to prohibit discrimination based on a person’s “private medical history or medical choices.” In employment, the bill bars employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations from refusing to hire, firing, demoting, or otherwise taking adverse action against a person because of private medical history or medical choices, and it also prohibits discriminatory job advertisements or inquiries. The bill defines adverse employment action broadly and applies to employers with six or more employees.
The bill also extends similar protections into housing and real estate. It would make it unlawful to discriminate in the sale, rental, financing, advertising, or servicing of dwellings or realty based on private medical history or medical choices, including in lending, mortgage, and real estate brokerage practices. It covers refusals to sell or rent, discriminatory statements in advertisements, and unequal access to multiple-listing services or related real estate organizations.
The bill includes an exception allowing an individual’s medical history or medical choices to be considered when they directly prevent performance of essential job functions, so long as any inquiry is job-related and consistent with business necessity. It also contains broad carve-outs for religious institutions and affiliated organizations, including the ability to prohibit reproductive health services on their property, refuse to provide or pay for reproductive health services, set employment policies tied to religious medical guidelines, refuse to provide health insurance coverage for reproductive health services, and in the housing section, refuse to sell, rent, lease, or extend credit when medical choices conflict with religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Overall sentiment appears to be protective of privacy and anti-discrimination, with the bill framed as expanding civil rights protections for workers and housing consumers. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, there is no documented floor or committee debate to show support or opposition. The structure of the bill suggests the main policy tension is between expanding medical-privacy-based protections and preserving religious liberty and reproductive-health exemptions.
The most notable point of contention is likely the scope of the religious exemptions, especially the explicit references to reproductive health services and the ability of religiously affiliated entities to refuse services, coverage, or transactions. Another possible area of debate is the breadth of the term “private medical history or medical choices,” which could raise questions about how far the new protections extend and how they interact with existing employment, housing, and civil-rights law.
HB 1058 would amend Chapter 213, RSMo, by creating new anti-discrimination protections in both employment and housing/realty law. It would add a new protected basis tied to private medical history or medical choices, affecting employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, real estate brokers, landlords, lenders, and other housing-related actors. The bill would likely expand the Missouri Human Rights Act’s reach and create new grounds for administrative complaints or civil enforcement under state anti-discrimination law.
The bill’s overall tone is pro-privacy and anti-discrimination, aiming to prevent adverse treatment based on medical history or personal medical decisions. In the absence of recorded votes or committee testimony, there is no direct evidence of organized support or opposition in the provided materials. The text itself, however, shows a clear attempt to balance civil-rights protections with exemptions for religious institutions and affiliated entities, suggesting the bill was designed to appeal to both privacy advocates and religious-liberty concerns.
The main likely point of contention is the bill’s broad religious exemption language, especially provisions allowing religiously affiliated institutions to refuse reproductive health services, insurance coverage, and certain housing or employment transactions. Opponents could view those carve-outs as weakening the bill’s anti-discrimination protections, while supporters may see them as necessary accommodations for religious freedom. A second area of possible dispute is the breadth and ambiguity of “private medical history or medical choices,” including how it would be interpreted in hiring, housing, and lending decisions and whether it could create compliance uncertainty for employers and housing providers.