SB 1389 creates a new private right of action against business entities that allow a person of one biological sex to enter a restroom or changing facility designated for the opposite biological sex, where that entry is alleged to violate another individual’s privacy or expectation of privacy. The bill defines terms such as “biological sex,” “changing facility,” “restroom,” “unisex restroom,” and “unisex changing facility,” and limits the covered spaces to facilities under the direct control of a business entity. It applies to both public-facing and non-public premises operated by businesses in Missouri.
If a plaintiff prevails, the bill authorizes nominal damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages of at least $10,000, and recovery of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. The bill also creates affirmative defenses for certain entries by disabled individuals or children under 13 accompanied by an adult of the same biological sex, by employees or agents entering to clean or secure the facility after notice, and by first responders acting lawfully in the performance of their duties.
The bill would add section 537.775 to Missouri’s tort law chapter, expanding civil liability for businesses that maintain restroom or changing-facility access policies alleged to violate privacy based on biological sex. It would affect business owners, operators of facilities with restrooms or changing rooms, and potentially transgender access policies, while also carving out exceptions for unisex facilities and specified safety, maintenance, disability, child, and emergency-response situations. The measure would likely influence how businesses design, label, and enforce restroom and changing-room access rules to reduce litigation risk.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or legislative support/opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to reflect a strong privacy- and sex-segregation-oriented policy approach, likely appealing to supporters concerned about restroom privacy and business liability. At the same time, the bill’s subject matter suggests it would be controversial among opponents who view it as discriminatory or as targeting transgender individuals and inclusive restroom policies.
The main point of contention is the bill’s use of “biological sex” as the controlling standard for restroom and changing-facility access, which would be disputed by those who support gender identity-based access or broader nondiscrimination protections. Another likely dispute is the creation of a private cause of action with mandatory minimum punitive damages and attorney’s fees, which could be seen as exposing businesses to significant litigation risk. Supporters are likely to emphasize privacy, safety, and clear facility rules, while opponents would focus on civil rights, discrimination concerns, and the practical effects on transgender people, families, disabled individuals, and businesses.