An employee at a club in Missouri received an order to withhold income for child support. His employer fired him, having warned him earlier that it would do so if it received a withholding order. He sued, claiming that state law prohibits employers from firing employees just because they receive child support withholding orders.

What happened. “Gregory” was employed by the Kansas City Club. In November 2007, the district court of Johnson County, Kansas, sent the Club documents seeking to verify Gregory’s income. One of the Club’s managers showed these documents to Gregory and told him that if the court served a valid order for income withholding on the Club, Gregory’s employment would be terminated.

On May 5, 2008, the Johnson County district court issued to Gregory an order to withhold income for child support. Gregory gave a copy of this order to the Club’s bookkeeper. The Club terminated Gregory soon thereafter. Gregory sued the Club for wrongful discharge.

He claimed that a Club manager had informed him that the Club had decided to terminate his employment because he had become subject to the income withholding order. The trial court dismissed his lawsuit, finding that he was an employee at will and therefore could not be wrongfully discharged. Gregory appealed.

What the court said. Gregory argued that Missouri state law (MO Rev. Stat. Sec. 454.505.10) creates a public policy that encourages parents to pay child support and prohibits the discharge or discipline of employees who become subject to child support income withholding orders. Because the Club terminated him due to the child support order, its action was against the state’s public policy. The Club countered that statute does not create a private cause of action, and does not create any public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

A Missouri employer may terminate an employee at will at any time, for any cause or no cause at all, as long as the employee is not protected by a specific statute. Courts do make exceptions for employees who are discharged in violation of “clear mandates of public policy.” There are four general categories of exceptions, including firing employees for refusing to perform illegal acts, reporting violations of the law, or filing workers’ compensation claims. Gregory claimed that his situation fell under the fourth exception, which forbids terminating an employee because he “participated in acts that public policy would encourage, such as jury duty, seeking public office, asserting a right to collective bargaining, or joining a union.”

Gregory claimed that public policy encourages the payment of child support. He pointed out that Section 454.505.10 provides that an employer “shall not discharge, or refuse to hire or otherwise discipline, an employee as a result of an order to withhold and pay over certain money authorized by this section,” which Gregory believed included orders to pay child support.

The Club argued that Gregory had not engaged in any act that public policy would encourage. It claimed that he would have had to engage in some affirmative act, such as jury duty. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The state does encourage the payment of child support. By becoming subject to the withholding order, Gregory was becoming involved in that payment, whether he sought out the action or not.

Other courts outside Missouri have found that employers could not discharge employees for becoming subject to child support orders, largely because firing such employees would significantly affect their ability to discharge their responsibilities.

Like jury duty, child support is a legal obligation enforced by the courts. Section 454.505.10 creates a public policy that prohibits the termination of employees just for receiving child support withholding orders. The Court of Appeals, therefore, reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case and sent the case back for trial. Hamid v. Kansas City Club, Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, No. WD70598 (2009).

Point to remember: This ruling sends a clear message to employers in Missouri: Don’t fire employees just because they receive income withholding orders for payment of child support!