Solicitor General D. John Sauer Archives

High-profile corrections officer overtime case heads to Missouri Supreme Court on Wednesday

April 21, 2020 By Brian Hauswirth

The Missouri Supreme Court will hear remote oral arguments on Wednesday morning in a case involving a lower court’s decision to award more than $113 million in overtime pay for Missouri corrections officers.

Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice George Draper listens to oral arguments in the Lamar Johnson case on April 14, 2020 in Jefferson City. Because of COVID-19 concerns, it was the first time in history the court held remote arguments (photo courtesy of Missouri Supreme Court communications counsel Beth Riggert)

Because of COVID-19 concerns, only Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice George Draper is expected to be in the Jefferson City courtroom on Wednesday. He’ll face a screen through which attorneys will participate remotely by videoconference. The other six judges will be participating remotely via teleconference. You will be able to listen to the oral arguments live on the Supreme Court’s website.

This will only be the second time in history that the Missouri Supreme Court has used remote arguments. The first time was last week in the Lamar Johnson case.

Wednesday’s oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.

Following a jury trial, Cole County Circuit Judge Pat Joyce awarded the money to the corrections officers, and has also ordered the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) to pay for pre- and post-shift activities for officers, such as time to pick up and return radios and inventory weapons.

A corrections officer named Thomas Hootselle Jr. and other officers sued the DOC, on behalf of a proposed class of more than 13,000 officers, for allegedly failing to pay them under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act for pre- and post-shift activities. Labor agreements executed between the DOC and the Missouri Corrections Officers Association do not specifically address pre- and post-shift activities.

The Cole County circuit court has ruled that pre- and post-shift activities are compensable.

The DOC is being represented at the Missouri Supreme Court by the state attorney general’s office. In its 127-page brief, state Solicitor General D. John Sauer says the court erred in its decision and ruled in favor of the corrections officers after a one-sided jury trial. Sauer says only the corrections officers were allowed to present expert evidence.

“This case involves a judgment imposing enormous liability on Missouri’s taxpayers without legal justification,” Sauer writes in his brief to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Mr. Sauer is asking the high court to reverse the circuit court’s decision.

Mr. Hootselle and the corrections officers are represented by St. Louis attorney Gary Burger.

In his 135-page brief to the Missouri Supreme Court, Mr. Burger says the class of more than 13,000 Missouri corrections officers “risk their lives every day maintaining safety and security at appellant Missouri Department of Corrections’ prisons.” He says the DOC requires its officers to perform pre- and post-shift activities that are critical to prison safety and security, but has refused to pay the officers for these activities.

“The officers’ claim here is simple: MDOC must pay guards for guarding,” Burger writes.

Counselor Berger also says that the time between shift changes, when pre- and post-shift activities happen, “are often when prisoners attack others, try to escape, or try to smuggle contraband.”

The class action lawsuit began in 2012, and the circuit court issued its ruling in 2018.

While the Missouri Supreme Court will hear the case on Wednesday, there is no timetable on when they will issue a decision.

Missouri Supreme Court to hear arguments Tuesday in key Planned Parenthood case

December 9, 2019 By Brian Hauswirth

The Missouri Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday morning in Jefferson City in a key case involving the state’s legal dispute with Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

The complicated legal case began when the Legislature appropriated money for fiscal year 2019, which prohibited expenditure of funds to any abortion facility. The sentence specifically reads “no funds shall be expended to any abortion facility as defined in Section 188.015, or any affiliate or associate thereof.”

The Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS), through its Missouri Medicaid Audit and Compliance Unit, denied funding requests from Planned Parenthood, which appealed to the administrative hearing commission (AHC). The AHC ruled in the state’s favor.

However, St. Louis Circuit Judge David Dowd ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, saying portions of the appropriations bill violated the state Constitution.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R) and Solicitor General D. John Sauer have submitted a 32-page brief to the Missouri Supreme Court, outlining their case. Schmitt and Counselor Sauer say the trial court erred, and that the bill does not violate the single subject provision. They also say the trial court erred in taxing costs against the state of Missouri.

Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region is being represented by Jefferson City attorney Chuck Hatfield, who’s submitted a 42-page brief to the Supreme Court.

Counselor Hatfield writes that Judge Dowd’s ruling should be affirmed. He says the appropriations bill violates the state Constitution, and says the Attorney General’s office is quoting opinions that “are neither binding nor persuasive.” Hatfield also says existing state law required the state to pay Planned Parenthood for physician and family planning services it provides to Missouri Medicaid beneficiaries.

The Supreme Court will hear the arguments Tuesday morning at 9:30 in Jefferson City. Missourinet managing editor Alisa Nelson will be covering the case.

Supreme Court hears complex rural Missouri CAFO and Clean Water Commission case

September 27, 2019 By Brian Hauswirth

The state Supreme Court has heard oral arguments this week in Jefferson City involving a proposed concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) in northwest Missouri’s Grundy County.

The case before the Supreme Court involves whether or not a 2016 state law is constitutional.

Trenton Farms LLC wants to build a swine operation, which is opposed by a group called “Hickory Neighbors United.” Hickory attorney Stephen Jeffery tells the court that a 2016 state law changing the composition of the Missouri Clean Water Commission is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject clause.

“Senate amendment number one is put onto House bill 1713 which amends (RSMO) 644.021 which alters the composition of the Clean Water Commission,” Jeffery tells the judges.

RSMO stands for revised statutes of Missouri.

Jeffery alleges that public representation on the Clean Water Commission “has been severely curtailed” due to the Legislature’s action. He says that because of the law, there is no longer a requirement that at least four members of the Clean Water Commission represent the public.

Much of Jeffery’s legal argument is based on the single subject clause. He says the law was amended, with about one week to go in the 2016 session.

“The membership of the Clean Water Commission has nothing to do with regulating water systems and all the other statutory provisions that were contained in House bill 1713,” says Jeffery.

The law was vetoed by then-Governor Jay Nixon (D) in 2016, but the GOP-controlled Legislature overrode that veto in September 2016, along with 12 other vetoes.

Grundy County residents on both sides of the controversial issue made the three-hour drive from Trenton to Jefferson City on Wednesday to hear oral arguments at the Missouri Supreme Court. CAFO supporters say it’s about economic development and jobs, while opponents worry about water and air quality.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the case on behalf of Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt. Sauer is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the 2016 law, saying it’s constitutional. Solicitor General Sauer disagrees with CAFO critics who say the law violates the single subject clause.

“Regulation of water systems is clearly well within the scope of the broad umbrella categories for single subjects that this court has upheld in numerous cases,” Sauer tells the court.

He also says Hickory Neighbors lacks the legal standing to challenge the Clean Water Commission’s composition. Sauer also tells the court that Hickory Neighbors did not raise constitutional challenges on time.

The Supreme Court heard 34 minutes of oral arguments on Wednesday morning. They have not announced when they’ll issue a ruling in the case.

Click here to read the legal briefs from “Hickory Neighbors United” attorney Stephen Jeffery.

Click here to read the legal briefs from Solicitor General D. John Sauer.