At the halfway point of 2026, employment law risks for employers with Missouri and Kansas employees continue to be driven less by new legislation and more by how employers are applying existing laws.
Key trends we are seeing include:
- Accommodation requests are increasing in both volume and complexity. Employers are seeing more requests tied to mental health conditions, pregnancy, and overlapping medical issues. The resulting risk is not typically the request itself, but inconsistent handling of and response to the request (i.e., failing to engage in the interactive process, skipping documentation, or treating similar requests differently). Employers should ensure Human Resources is involved and that there is a clear, documented process for evaluating and responding to requests. In addition, if a request might be denied as an undue hardship, employers may want to consult legal counsel to confirm their analysis and should remember their duty to explore alternative effective accommodations even if a requested accommodation is an undue hardship.
- Retaliation claims remain a primary driver of litigation. Many claims arise not from the underlying complaint, but from what happens next. Actions that might otherwise seem routine and justified, such as discipline, schedule changes, or terminations, can be viewed as retaliatory if they occur shortly after a protected activity. The key is proper motives, timing, documentation, and consistency. Employers should assume that any action taken after a complaint will be scrutinized and ensure there is a well-documented, legitimate business rationale.
- Restrictive covenants are still enforceable under Kansas and Missouri law, but are under pressure. While courts continue to enforce reasonable non-compete and non-solicit agreements, overly broad restrictions – particularly in duration, geography, or scope – are facing greater pushback. Employees are also more willing to challenge these agreements. Employers should review templates to ensure they are narrowly tailored to the circumstances and defensible.
- How employers handle complaints matters as much as the complaint itself. Employers often focus on whether a complaint is true or false. Increasingly, however, agencies, courts, and juries are focused on how the employer responded once the complaint was made. A deficient investigation may not create a standalone legal claim, but it can become important evidence in later litigation. An employee alleging discrimination, harassment, or retaliation may argue that the employer’s failure to promptly investigate, interview key witnesses, review relevant evidence, or document findings demonstrates that the complaint was not taken seriously. Similarly, a one-sided or inconsistent investigation may be cited as evidence that the employer’s stated reasons for a later employment decision were not the real reasons. In practice, a poorly handled investigation can undermine an employer’s credibility and defenses. If an employer fails to follow its own policies, ignores relevant evidence, reaches conclusions before gathering the facts, or treats complaints inconsistently, a jury may be more skeptical of the employer’s explanations throughout the case. By contrast, a prompt, impartial, and well-documented investigation can be one of an employer’s strongest defenses. Even when a complaint is ultimately unsubstantiated, employers are generally in a much stronger position when they can demonstrate that they took the concern seriously, investigated thoroughly, documented their findings, and responded appropriately based on the information available at the time.
- Manager decision-making continues to drive exposure. Many legal risks originate at the supervisor level. Where managers deviate from standard practices, fail to document performance issues, or lack training on key employment compliance principles, it can become difficult to defend later actions. Ongoing manager training and Human Resources oversight are critical to mitigating this risk.
Bottom line: Employers that prioritize key policies, consistent processes, careful investigation, thorough documentation, non-retaliation obligations, and proactive manager training are best positioned to mitigate risk through the remainder of 2026 and beyond. In many cases, liability turns less on the decision itself and more on whether the decision was made, communicated, and documented consistently.