JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. _ A Missouri House Republican leader is under fire for cutting off the testimony of Missouri NAACP President Rod Chapel during a public hearing on bills pertaining to Missouri discrimination law.
Chapel was testifying in opposition to a set of bills that he said would make it more difficult for employees to sue for discrimination. He began his testimony by citing several institutions that have endorsed the bills.
The committee chairman, Rep. Bill Lant, a Pineville Republican, asked Chapel to "please contain your speech to speaking on the bill."
Chapel said his comments were related to the bill. He told the committee this was "nothing but Jim Crow."
Shortly thereafter, Chapel's microphone was shut off. Lant then thanked Chapel for his testimony. Chapel attempted to continue, but was not permitted to do so.
When Assistant House Minority Leader Rep. Gina Mitten, a St. Louis Democrat, asked to be recognized to ask questions of Chapel, she was denied by Lant.
Mitten later released a statement calling Lant's behavior "unprofessional" and "racist."
"Jim Crow is alive and well in Missouri," Mitten said in the statement. "Representative Lant just proved it."
After the hearing, Lant declined to comment to the Springfield News-Leader.
He could not be reached by The Kansas City Star for comment.
Chapel commented on the hearing in a statement released Tuesday morning by the Legislative Black Caucus.
"The Chair's refusal to let me speak ensured that not only my voice, but all voices of those protected by anti-discrimination laws in the state were silenced," Chapel said.
The bills being heard Monday night are included in a set of proposed changes to Missouri's current laws governing employer discrimination.
Currently, those wishing to sue their employers for discrimination claims must prove that a protected status was a contributing factor in their termination. The proposed bills change the language from "contributing factor" to "because of."
Proponents of the bills say the change in language brings Missouri on par with national standards and protects employers from frivolous suits.
But others, like Chapel, think the language change sets the burden of proof too high, substantially lowering discrimination protection for minorities.
