Establishes the "Civil Liability for Employers Hiring Ex-Offenders Act", which provides liability protections for employers hiring those convicted of certain offenses
HB1087 creates the “Civil Liability for Employers Hiring Ex-Offenders Act” and limits when an employer, general contractor, premises owner, or other third party can be sued for negligent hiring based on a worker’s prior criminal conviction. In general, the bill bars a cause of action for hiring someone with a conviction, except for a long list of serious offenses, including many violent, sexual, fraud-related, theft-related, and other felony offenses specifically identified in the bill. It also makes evidence of a worker’s prior nonviolent, nonsexual conviction inadmissible in certain negligent-hiring cases.
The bill preserves some existing supervision-based claims, but narrows when a prior nonviolent, nonsexual conviction may be used as evidence. That evidence would be allowed only if the employer knew, or was grossly negligent in failing to know, about the conviction and the conviction was directly related to the job and the conduct that caused the injury. The bill also carves out exceptions for misuse of funds or property, attorney misappropriation of funds, and violent or excessive-force conduct by employees hired as law enforcement officers or security guards.
HB1087 would amend Chapter 537, RSMo, by adding a new section that substantially limits negligent-hiring liability in Missouri for employers and other hiring entities when they hire people with criminal records. It would affect civil tort claims, the admissibility of conviction evidence, and the scope of damages exposure for employers, contractors, premises owners, and similar third parties. At the same time, it preserves liability in certain high-risk contexts and for specific categories of offenses, especially where the prior conviction is closely tied to the job duties or involves fraud, violence, or misuse of force.
The bill’s overall tone is pro-employment and pro-business, reflecting a policy choice to reduce legal barriers for hiring people with criminal histories, especially for nonviolent and nonsexual offenses. The available context does not show recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented opposition or support from transcripts. Based on the text alone, the measure appears designed to encourage second-chance hiring while still preserving liability in limited, higher-risk situations.
The main point of contention is the balance between second-chance hiring and public safety or victim compensation. Supporters would likely favor the bill because it shields employers from broad negligent-hiring suits and reduces the legal risk of hiring ex-offenders. Potential critics may argue that the bill goes too far in limiting lawsuits and excluding evidence, particularly where an employer knew of a conviction but hired the person anyway. The bill tries to address those concerns by keeping exceptions for violent offenses, fraud, fiduciary misuse, attorneys handling funds, and security or law-enforcement roles.