Our partnerships make our work possible. The State LGBT+ Business Climate Index is financially supported by a grant from the Gill Foundation. The Index is based on data graciously shared by the Movement Advancement Project and the Williams Institute. Ropes & Gray is our pro bono legal partner for the CEO Business Briefs globally, and their research informs this Index. FCB partnered with us to conduct original market research into American attitudes toward LGBT+ workplace inclusion, informing the Regional Context section of the State CEO Briefs. America Competes supported the development of the scoring for the Risk Assessments detailed below, particularly for the Future Risk score.

Out Leadership and FCB partnered on original market research into the attitudes of American workers on LGBT+ inclusion, which fielded in March and April 2019. The full results will be launched in September 2019; we are able to share preliminary regional comparisons in this brief.

Only 50.8% of LGBT+ workers in the Midwest are out at work. They are only slightly more comfortable being open with their managers than other regions (14% more likely), but they are the least likely to cover their identity at work (17% less likely than nationwide).  This could be due to the Midwest having the lowest rates for observing microaggressions (23% less likely) and hearing or engaging in negative conversations on average. However, workers in this region do not typically go out of their way to do business with inclusive companies (21% less likely than the nation as a whole).  This is primarily driven by those who live in more rural areas where respondents were 85% less likely to do business with companies that are inclusive.

Unless otherwise noted, all comparisons for more or less likely are compared to the National results.  Regional results are based off of 1,500 respondents (LGBT+ and Non-LGBT+ responses have been weighted to be age-representative for each audience in each region).  National results are based off of 600 respondents representative of each audience (LGBT+ vs Non-LGBT+).

States in the Midwest region included: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin

Current Legal Status of LGBT+ people 

Legal status of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community

• – Currently, sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected classes under Missouri’s nondiscrimination laws. While there is no protection from discrimination for LGBT+ people at the state level, at least 17 municipalities have adopted ordinances protecting people from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
• – Missouri does not have any law to protect state employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
• – While Missouri’s nondiscrimination law does not extend protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS) prohibits discrimination against DSS employees, DSS applicants, and foster care youth on the basis of sexual orientation. This policy does not explicitly extend to gender identity.
• – There are no laws in Missouri preventing LGBT+ individuals from becoming a foster parent. However, because there is no state law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, LGBT+ individuals could still face discrimination when applying to become a foster parent.
• – Missouri’s hate crime law provides for enhanced penalties for crimes committed and motivated by sexual orientation. For purposes of the hate crime statute, Missouri defines sexual orientation as “male or female heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality by inclination, practice, identity or expression, or having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s gender.”
• – There is no explicit prohibition in the law against an LGBT+ person or couple petitioning to adopt a child in Missouri, as the law uses gender-neutral language. Nor is there any explicit prohibition against an LGBT+ partner adopting a partner’s child. However, no Missouri court has confronted either issue.
• – Missouri law allows “any person” to petition to adopt a child. A petitioner may be single or married and, if married, the “spouse” may join in the petition to adopt.
• – Missouri law makes it a Class B felony for an individual with HIV to recklessly expose another to the HIV virus without that person’s knowledge and consent.

Legal status of the Transgender Community

• – Transgender individuals in Missouri may receive gender-affirming surgery and legally change their names and gender markers.
• – While there are no state-specific requirements for transgender individuals to be eligible for gender confirmation surgery, at least one medical center requires potential patients to have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or to have been evaluated by a healthcare professional experienced in gender issues who certifies that the individual would benefit from the surgery.
• – A transgender individual may receive a legal name change in Missouri by petitioning the court for a name change. Within 20 days of the petition being granted, the applicant must publish notice of the name change in a newspaper at least three times in the county in which the applicant resides. If there is no newspaper in that county, they can publish it in a newspaper in St. Louis. This notice requirement may be waived if the applicant is a victim of domestic violence or child abuse.
• – In order to change a gender marker on a birth certificate, a trans person must submit certified court orders indicating their correct gender identity and legal name change. To obtain a court order formally recognizing a transgender individual’s correct gender identity, he or she must petition the county circuit court. (Corrected gender recognition may also be part of the name-change petition.) Before the petition can be granted, Missouri law requires proof that the individual’s sex “has been changed by surgical procedure.” However, in May 2013, a Missouri court found that it was proper to grant an applicant’s petition to formally recognize her correct gender identity notwithstanding the fact that she had not undergone gender affirming surgery. The court noted that a surgical requirement may be “unsuitable, dangerous, or unnecessary” to the applicant in certain circumstances. Transgender individuals may therefore be able to legally change gender markers without surgery if his or her physician attests that such surgery is “unsuitable, dangerous, or unnecessary.”
• – After obtaining a legal name change, transgender individuals may change their name on their Missouri driver’s license or identification card by presenting a document demonstrating their current name, such as a certified court order of name change, a valid US passport, or a Social Security or Medicare Card.
• – Individuals may also change their gender marker on their driver’s license by filing a completed Gender Designation Change Request Form, which requires the individual’s healthcare provider to certify the individual’s gender identity and that it “can reasonably be expected to continue as such in the foreseeable future.”
• – Missouri’s state Medicaid (MO HealthNet) does not cover transition-related healthcare services, and the state does not ban private insurance companies from restricting coverage for transition-related healthcare.

Government statements and actions

• – Missouri lawmakers recently rejected a proposal to amend the House’s existing internal rules covering equal employment opportunities and discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
• – Two “bathroom bills” were introduced in the Missouri General Assembly in 2017 and again in 2018. One bill would have required transgender students at public school to use restrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities corresponding to their gender at birth, while the second bill would have broadened the application to all persons and public buildings. Neither bill was enacted into law.
• – In February 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court held that a transgender student who was denied access to the bathroom and locker room corresponding with his gender identity could sue the school district for sex discrimination under Missouri’s nondiscrimination law.
• – In 2016, a Senate Joint Resolution was introduced in the Missouri General Assembly which would have prohibited imposing penalties on religious organizations for denying services to LGBT+ individuals based on a “sincere religious belief” that marriage is between a man and a woman. The resolution was ultimately defeated in the House as a result of a 39-hour filibuster, the longest such filibuster in memory.
• – A similar bill was introduced in February 2018. The bill went one step further than the 2016 resolution by prohibiting the imposition of penalties on individuals, as well as religious organizations. The bill would also have prohibited adverse decisions related to accreditation, certification, or licensing based on religious beliefs related to marriage, family or sexuality. The bill also, notably, contained nondiscrimination protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, the first time a religious exemptions bill in Missouri had done so. The bill did not move to committee or to debate.
• – In mid-January 2018, The Youth Mental Health Preservation Act was introduced in the Missouri General Assembly. It sought to prohibit licensed medical professionals from engaging in conversion therapy of a minor. The bill targeted “any practices or treatments that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.” The bill was not adopted during the 2018 session. The bill was reintroduced in the General Assembly on January 9, 2019. St Louis City passed a resolution supporting the act in February, 2019.
• – In December 2017, the Chief of the Department for Children and Families’ spoke out against discrimination of same-sex couples in adoption and foster care cases and announced a “zero tolerance” policy for discrimination based on sexual orientation in such cases.