Potentially, yes. Employers routinely cite performance to justify terminations that are actually driven by a workers’ compensation claim or injury report. Under Missouri law, a pretextual performance rationale does not shield an employer from liability under § 287.780. The question is whether the stated reason is credible — and whether the evidence tells a different story. If you were fired after a workplace injury, a Kansas City workers’ compensation retaliation attorney can help you evaluate the full picture.
What “Pretext” Means in a Retaliation Case
Pretext is a stated reason for an employment decision that does not reflect the actual reason. In workers’ compensation retaliation cases in Missouri, employers almost never admit that they fired someone for filing a claim. They document a performance problem instead. The legal question is whether that documented problem is the real reason — or a cover.
Missouri courts allow employees to prove retaliation by showing that the employer’s stated reason is unworthy of belief. That showing, combined with evidence of protected activity and adverse action, supports a finding of unlawful retaliation under § 287.780.
Patterns That Signal a Pretextual Performance Claim
The Performance Plan That Appeared After the Injury
In my experience, one of the clearest warning signs is a performance improvement plan that begins after a workplace injury or workers’ comp filing — not before. If an employee has years of acceptable reviews and a PIP appears within weeks of reporting an injury, that timeline is not a coincidence. It is a pattern I have seen repeatedly, and it is exactly the kind of evidence we develop during discovery.
Shifting or Inconsistent Performance Evaluations
A credible performance defense requires consistency. When an employer’s written evaluations suddenly shift negative only after an injury report, the inconsistency becomes evidence. We look for prior performance reviews, any documented commendations, past raises or promotions, and communications from supervisors that contradict the disciplinary record being asserted.
Discipline Applied Selectively
If other employees committed the same conduct and were not disciplined, that disparity matters. Selective enforcement of workplace policies is a recognized form of pretext under Missouri employment law. We identify comparable employees and examine how they were treated under the same rules.
The Sequence of Events
Timing is one of the most important facts in any retaliation case. A termination that follows an injury report by days or weeks carries significant weight. Missouri courts have recognized temporal proximity as circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive. The closer the timing, the more difficult it is for an employer to separate the two events.
How We Challenge a Pretextual Performance Defense
When an employer claims performance, we examine the documentary record carefully. We request the complete personnel file, including all performance evaluations, disciplinary notices, attendance records, and any internal communications about the employee. We depose HR personnel and the supervisors who made the termination decision. We ask whether the performance standards were applied consistently. We ask when the documentation process began relative to the injury report.
Employers in Missouri have a duty to preserve relevant records once litigation is reasonably anticipated. That obligation arises early — often at the time of the termination itself, if the circumstances suggest a legal dispute may follow. Moving quickly preserves your access to that record before it is altered or lost.
Bad-Faith Performance Improvement Plans
Not every PIP is pretextual. But some are designed to fail. A bad-faith PIP typically sets standards that are vague, impossible to measure, or inconsistently applied. It may be created without input from the employee. It may be signed off on internally before the employee is even notified. In my practice, I have seen PIPs that were drafted in direct response to an injury report — with the termination already decided before the process began.
When that is the case, the PIP becomes evidence of the employer’s intent rather than a defense to the claim.
What You Need to Prove Under § 287.780
Missouri’s workers’ compensation anti-retaliation statute requires that you show your protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action. That is not a but-for standard. You do not need to prove that the retaliation was the only reason for your termination. You need to show it played a role.
This matters when an employer claims mixed motives — that performance was a legitimate reason alongside whatever else may have been happening. Missouri law allows a retaliation claim to survive even when there is some legitimate basis for discipline, provided the protected activity also contributed to the outcome.
What to Do If You Believe Your Performance Defense Is Pretextual
Preserve everything. Save copies of your performance reviews, any positive feedback from supervisors, emails about your work, and communications about your injury. Document the timeline — when you reported the injury, when the performance documentation began, and when the termination happened. Do not sign any severance agreement without having an attorney review it first.
Bring that record to a consultation. The more complete your documentation, the better position we are in to build the case.
Talk to a Kansas City Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Attorney
If your employer cited performance to justify a termination that followed a workplace injury or workers’ comp filing, do not assume the stated reason ends your claim. Contact Siro Smith Dickson PC for a free consultation. We handle workers’ compensation retaliation cases on a contingency basis — no fee unless we recover for you. Call (816) 471-4881 or contact us through our website.
The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and reflects the opinions of the author. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and results depend on the specific facts and applicable law. You should not act or rely on any information in this blog without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney regarding your individual situation.