Is Missouri an at-will state?

“This section is intended to codify the existing common law exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine and to limit their future expansion by the courts.”

Before you fire someone: the step-by-step checklist

What it means for Missouri employers

Missouri is unusual because the legislature rewrote the exception. Subsection 3 of § 285.575 says the section codifies the existing common law exceptions and is meant to stop courts from expanding them. The same subsection makes the section, together with chapter 213 and chapter 287, the exclusive remedy for claims of unlawful employment practices. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575, Whistleblower's Protection Act)

The statute decides who is covered. An employer, for this section, is an entity with six or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. The state of Missouri, its agencies and political subdivisions, public institutions of higher education, corporations wholly owned by the state, and corporations and associations owned or operated by religious or sectarian organizations are excluded, as is an individual employed by an employer. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575, Whistleblower's Protection Act)

A protected person is an employee who reported an unlawful act of the employer to the proper authorities, who reported to the employer serious employer misconduct that violates a clear mandate of public policy found in a constitutional provision, statute or regulation, or who refused to carry out a directive that would violate the law. Proper authorities include a government or law enforcement agency, an officer of the employer, the employee's supervisor, or the human resources representative. Two groups fall outside: supervisory, managerial or executive employees and officers reporting on matters they are employed to report on, and employees who report to the very person accused. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575, Whistleblower's Protection Act)

Causation is tested by the motivating factor standard in § 285.575.2: the protected status has to have actually played a role in, and had a determinative influence on, the decision. For a discharge before the Act (an October 2015 termination), the federal court in E.D. Mo. No. 4:17-cv-02876 (2018) described the common law whistleblowing claim as requiring a report that causally contributed to the discharge, with actual and punitive damages available. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575, Whistleblower's Protection Act; E.D. Mo. No. 4:17-cv-02876 (2018), stating Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute)

Remedies under the Act are limited. A protected person may recover actual damages but not punitive damages, and the only listed remedies are back pay and reimbursement of medical bills directly related to the violation, doubled as liquidated damages if the employee proves by clear and convincing evidence that the employer's conduct was outrageous because of evil motive or reckless indifference. No action exists under the section at all if another state or federal statutory or regulatory scheme already gives a private right of action for damages. Either party may demand a jury. Kansas, next door, has a parallel limit: its retaliatory discharge claim is unavailable where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575, Whistleblower's Protection Act; Debus v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., No. 2:15-cv-09121-JAR (D. Kan. Jan. 14, 2016))

Exceptions and special cases

• Public policy and whistleblowing (Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, 304 S.W.3d 81, Mo. 2010; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575): recognized, now in statutory form. Covers refusing a directive that would violate the law, reporting an unlawful act of the employer to the proper authorities, and reporting to the employer serious misconduct that violates a clear mandate of public policy, subject to the employer size, exclusions and remedy limits in the Act. (E.D. Mo. No. 4:17-cv-02876 (2018), stating Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575, Whistleblower's Protection Act)
• Implied contract from a handbook, and an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: no Missouri rule on these is verified on this site yet, so this page does not describe them.

Worked examples

A compliance manager's internal report

A Kansas City lender's compliance manager, whose job is to review and report on lending practices, flags a problem to the chief executive. Under § 285.575.2(4)(a), a supervisory or managerial employee reporting on matters the employee is employed to report on is not a protected person under the Act. A loan processor with no such duty who reports the same problem to a supervisor who is not the person accused falls within the statutory definition if the problem is an unlawful act of the employer, or serious misconduct that violates a clear mandate of public policy reported to the employer (here, through the employee's supervisor). The duties written into each job description are what the statutory wording is compared against. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575, Whistleblower's Protection Act; E.D. Mo. No. 4:17-cv-02876 (2018), stating Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute)

Counting employees for coverage

A St. Louis bakery had five employees through most of 2025 and added a sixth in March 2026. The Act counts an entity with six or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. The bakery's own payroll records for 2025 and 2026 are what show whether that threshold has been reached. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575, Whistleblower's Protection Act)

How to act on it

At-will: Missouri and neighboring states

Each state links to its rulebook. Only rules we verified are shown.

Questions about Missouri at-will rules

The verified rules behind this page (2)

• Public policy: Missouri recognizes a public-policy exception to at-will employment (Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute): an at-will employee may not be fired for refusing to violate the law or a clear mandate of public policy, or for reporting wrongdoing. The Whistleblower's Protection Act codifies the existing common-law exceptions, limits their future expansion by the courts and, together with chapters 213 and 287, provides the exclusive remedy for claims of unlawful employment practices. (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575.3 (Whistleblower's Protection Act, L. 2017 S.B. 43); Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C., 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. 2010) (en banc), as stated in E.D. Mo. No. 4:17-cv-02876; verified Sep 24, 2026)
• Public policy (Kansas, for comparison): Kansas recognizes common-law retaliatory discharge claims as a public policy exception to at-will employment, including retaliatory discharge for whistleblowing; the claim is unavailable where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists. (Debus v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., No. 2:15-cv-09121-JAR (D. Kan. Jan. 14, 2016); Howard v. Millard Refrigerated Services, Inc., No. 2:04-cv-02601-JAR (D. Kan. Feb. 22, 2007); verified Sep 24, 2026)

Sources (4)

• Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575, Whistleblower's Protection Act
• E.D. Mo. No. 4:17-cv-02876 (2018), stating Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute
• Debus v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., No. 2:15-cv-09121-JAR (D. Kan. Jan. 14, 2016)
• Howard v. Millard Refrigerated Services, Inc., No. 2:04-cv-02601-JAR (D. Kan. Feb. 22, 2007)

Checked Sep 24, 2026 · How we verify every rule · Report an error

Where this goes next

StateMissouri employer rulebookAll 51 statesAt-will employment by stateNext doorIllinois at-will rulesStep by stepHow to fire an employee in your state