Cooperative Home Care, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 514 S.W.3d 571

Background

St. Louis adopted Ordinance 70078, a citywide minimum-wage ordinance effective August 28, 2015, raising the local minimum in graduated steps to $11.00 and indexing thereafter to inflation.
Plaintiffs sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the ordinance was preempted by state law (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.502 and § 67.1571) and exceeded the city’s charter authority.
Section 67.1571 (enacted as an amendment to HB 1636) forbids municipalities from requiring a minimum wage above the state minimum; the City argued that provision was invalid because the bill violated Missouri’s single-subject rule (Mo. Const. art. III, § 23).
The trial court held § 67.1571 invalid but nonetheless invalidated Ordinance 70078 as preempted by § 290.502 and § 71.010 (general conformity statute).
Meanwhile the General Assembly passed HB 722 (codified as § 285.055), which prohibits new local higher minimum wages but expressly states it does not preempt state or local minimum wage ordinances in effect on August 28, 2015.
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s invalidation of Ordinance 70078, holding (1) § 67.1571 was invalid under the single-subject rule and (2) state law did not preempt the city ordinance; the City acted within home-rule/police powers.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 67.1571 (added as an amendment to HB 1636) validly preempts local higher minimum wages	§ 67.1571, if valid, expressly preempts Ordinance 70078	§ 67.1571 is invalid because the amendment violated the single-subject rule (art. III, § 23)	§ 67.1571 is invalid under the single-subject rule and may be severed from HB 1636; it does not preempt the ordinance
Whether the city is time-barred or estopped from raising the procedural invalidity of § 67.1571	City is barred by collateral estoppel or by the 5-year statute of limitations (§ 516.500)	City may raise procedural invalidity as a defense despite § 516.500; prior case did not produce an appeal to preclude relitigation	City may raise the procedural challenge as a defense; collateral estoppel and § 516.500 do not bar the defense
Whether state minimum wage law (§ 290.502), alone or with § 71.010, preempts local ordinances that set a higher local minimum wage	State law occupies the field or conflicts with local ordinances because it authorizes paying at least the state minimum	State law sets a floor (not a ceiling); local governments may supplement state law so long as they do not conflict	No conflict or field preemption: local ordinances that raise the wage floor are permissible and do not conflict with § 290.502 or § 71.010
Whether Ordinance 70078 exceeded St. Louis’s home-rule/charter powers or improperly delegated authority	The subject (minimum wage) is a statewide concern; ordinance improperly delegates legislative power to an administrative director and creates civil liabilities between private parties	Ordinance is an exercise of police powers related to local welfare; delegation fits accepted exceptions; penalties are enforcement, not private causes of action	City acted within home-rule/police powers; delegation to director is permissible under established exceptions; enforcement provisions are lawful

Key Cases Cited

Peters v. Johns, 489 S.W.3d 262 (Mo. banc 2016) (standard for de novo review of statute validity)
Rentschler v. Nixon, 311 S.W.3d 783 (Mo. banc 2010) (presumption of statute validity and challenger’s burden)
Hammerschmidt v. Boone Cnty., 877 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. banc 1994) (single-subject rule analysis and severability test)
Page Western, Inc. v. Cmty. Fire Prot. Dist. of St. Louis Cnty., 636 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. banc 1982) (local ordinances may supplement state law)
Kansas City v. LaRose, 524 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. banc 1975) (no preemption when local law enlarges state law rather than permitting what state forbids)
Tolentino v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., 437 S.W.3d 754 (Mo. banc 2014) (purpose of minimum-wage statute to protect employees)