Ressler v. Clay County
375 S.W.3d 132
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ressler worked in Clay County Treasurer's office 1998–2008 as deputy treasurer under two treasurers.
- Treasurer is an elected official; salaries paid from budget approved by County Commission.
- Ressler filed 2010 MHRA claim alleging gender-based compensation discrimination on behalf of herself and a putative class of female employees.
- County granted summary judgment on Ressler's individual gender-discrimination claim (Count I) before class certification was addressed.
- Court held it permissible to decide dispositive issues on individual claims before class certification and that the putative class claims were not prejudiced by this procedure.
- Ressler's other MHRA claims and class-certification issues were moot or not before the court for ruling on the certified class at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether class certification must precede dispositive motions | Ressler argues certification should come first | Clay County argues merits can be decided without certification | Discretionary timing allows summary judgment before certification |
| Whether the county's summary-judgment on Ressler's individual claim was proper | Ressler contends County mischaracterized as affirmative defense | County negated essential proof element; no waiver | Summary judgment proper; no genuine issue on element of disparate treatment |
| Whether the trial court erred in relying on statutory/administrative framework to allocate salaries | Ressler argues Commission controls salaries | Treasurer controls salaries within budget once funds are appropriated | Treasurer has initial salary-setting authority; no fact issue on legal framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Schock, 742 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1984) (timing of class certification discretionary; may decide merits first)
- Cowen v. Bank United of Texas, FSB, 70 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 1995) (summary judgment before certification not preclusive; wiggle room in Rule 23)
- Kuyper v. Stone County Comm'n, 838 S.W.2d 436 (Mo. banc 1992) (budget process limits; treasurer's office authorizes salaries)
- State ex rel. Coca-Cola Co. v. Kendrick, 142 S.W.3d 729 (Mo. banc 2004) (distinguishes due-process concerns; class status not yet certified)