Missouri Supreme Court upholds voter-approved minimum wage, paid sick leave initiative
Missouri's Supreme Court upheld the initiative in a unanimous opinion, although one judge dissented on the reasoning.
Missouri voters continue to wonder whether Prop A will go into effect
'Prop A' is set to take effect this Thursday, May 1, but some challengers are still trying to repeal this portion of the proposition, saying rules on sick leave shouldn't have been lumped in on the ballot with a minimum wage increase.
Missouri's Restaurant Association is among those challengers.
FOX4 caught up with the restaurant association's CEO, Buddy Lahl, on Tuesday after leaving Jefferson City. Lahl and a coalition of restaurant owners were meeting with State Senators about House Bill 567, which would repeal the earned sick pay portion of the proposition.
It passed the House, but has been met with filibusters in the Senate. As it stands now, starting Thursday, employers will have to calculate at least one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked, consecutive or otherwise.
'This is going to hurt small businesses in Missouri,' Lahl said. 'It's not going to hurt the larger employees as much because they have systems in place, they are going to have to adhere to these guidelines and regulations.'
Right now, only businesses with an annual revenue of less than $500,000 are exempt.
Lahl said he'd support sick time regulations if businesses with fewer than 100 employees, or at the very least 50, were exempt.
'We are happy to work with businesses on successful implementation and really doing what voters intend,' said Richard van Glahn, director of Missouri Jobs with Justice. 'When the business groups and some legislators are really seeking to do is undermine what voters clearly intended…that's where we have a problem.
'I don't think the courts should have ever been asked to overthrow the will of 1.7 million people,' he added.
Without a repeal, Lahl said suffering small businesses may be forced to cut other benefits or lay off employees.
'And what will absolutely happen is they will have to raise prices; as you incur additional expenses, you have to raise prices,' Lahl said.
If Missouri's Legislature does vote on the bill, it will have to happen before the Legislature adjourns on May 16.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Northern Virginia schools at risk of losing funding over transgender bathroom policies
Five northern Virginia school districts are at risk of losing their federal funding after they rejected the terms on an agreement with the Education Department to resolve probes into their transgender students policies. Districts representing Alexandria City, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County and Prince William County have been placed on high-risk status, the agency said Tuesday. All federal funding sent to these school districts will now be done by reimbursement only, forcing the schools to pay their education expenses up front. More than $50 million of formula funding, discretionary grants and impact aid grants are at risk. Education Department officials said they are now proceeding with efforts to suspend or terminate federal funding to these school districts. 'States and school districts cannot openly violate federal law while simultaneously receiving federal funding with no additional scrutiny,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. 'The Northern Virginia School Divisions that are choosing to abide by woke gender ideology in place of federal law must now prove they are using every single federal dollar for a legal purpose.' The Education Department said the schools were found to be in violation of Title IX, the federal education law that bars sex discrimination, because of their policies allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity. Officials said the agency's Office for Civil Rights finished its investigation on July 25 and the school districts did not sign a proposed resolution agreement by its Aug. 15 deadline. The department's action marks a major step against the D.C. area's suburban school systems, and it is one that is most often deployed against entities with a history of financial instability, poor fiscal management, a track record of unsatisfactory performance with federal funds, and other missteps. In one instance, the U.S. Virgin Islands school system was designated by the department as a "high-risk" grantee in the late 1990s because of unsatisfactory performance. The agency has also imposed the designation on Guam and American Samoa. The Trump administration has said Title IX will now only be interpreted based on biological sex and has sought to end transgender student participation in sports teams and use of single-sex facilities that align with their gender identity. But the school districts' policies align with a landmark case in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that bolsters transgender students' rights in the state. In 2021, the Supreme Court punted on the long-winding legal battle over transgender students' rights to use bathrooms that match their gender identity in Gavin Grimm's case against the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia. The 4th Circuit sided with Grimm twice, ruling the transgender bathroom ban was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The Supreme Court's decision to not hear the case meant the appeals court's decision remained in place. The Supreme Court punted again in 2024 on an Indiana school bathrooms case, but has agreed to take up a pair of challenges over state laws barring transgender students from women's sports. Juan Perez Jr. contributed to this report. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Town, Red Hook Boat Club spar over eminent domain: Where issue stands after court ruling
The Town of Red Hook and the Red Hook Boat Club continue to be at odds over the future of the boat club's 2.37-acre property, situated in Barrytown, a hamlet of Red Hook. About a month ago, on July 15, Red Hook held a Town Board meeting and voted to proceed with eminent domain and the acquisition of the property in a 3-2 vote. Town Supervisor Robert McKeon, Deputy Supervisor Bill Hamel and Jacob Testa voted in support, and Christine Kane and Julia Solomon voted in opposition of the acquisition. "At this time, the boat club has a deadline to file a lawsuit, which they indicate they intend to do, challenging the Town's determination to have public access to the river," Town Supervisor Robert McKeon said in an email statement. However, earlier this year, the Red Hook Boat Club filed another lawsuit with the state Supreme Court on the Town of Red Hook's Feb. 11 adoption of Local Law No. 1 of 2025, a zoning amendment, which the boat club alleged was a procedural violation, overreach of authority and lack of comprehensive planning justification. On Friday, Aug. 15, the state Supreme Court annulled the zoning amendment. With continuing legal expenses, on Monday, Aug. 18, the Red Hook Boat Club held a monetary donation ceremony on behalf of the Mohawk Hudson Council of Yacht Clubs and the Hudson River Boat and Yacht Club Association in support of the boat club. "What was presented as a benign amendment to zoning laws turned out to be a calculated maneuver, one designed to pave the way for eminent domain ... This was about power, power wielded swiftly, without transparency and without the support of the very community it would affect," said Red Hook Boat Club Commodore Richard Ross. Ross said the ceremony ended up being an opportunity for the boat club members, Red Hook residents, local elected officials, including County Executive Sue Serino, and greater Hudson Valley area yacht and boat club leaders to come together. "That ruling really validates everything this community has been standing up for, and it matters," Serino said at the gathering. "This really is a significant step in the right direction, but we also know the fight isn't over." However, according to McKeon, the annulled zoning amendment and the creation of a waterfront park are "two separate actions," and there will be no impact on future eminent domain proceedings. From the town's perspective, the eminent domain proceedings are an equity issue. "We've said from the beginning the objective is not displacement but rather opening up the property to more than just 100 members," McKeon said. Here's what happened at the Red Hook Boat Club's Monday community meeting, what the state Supreme Court ruled, and what happens from here. Red Hook Boat Club, community come together to express ongoing concerns A couple dozen people gathered on the afternoon of Aug. 19 in their ongoing objection to the Town of Red Hook's eminent domain proceedings — the process through which the government takes ownership of property for public use, according to the Institute for Justice. Serino, also a Rogers Point Boat Club member, situated in Hyde Park, and Chairman of the Dutchess County Legislature, Will Truitt, were a part of the Monday gathering, both stating this issue is not about politics, but a precedent that crosses party lines. "The people say this is wrong," Truitt said. Serino said it's important "all of our voices are together," and the boat club is a "living part of Red Hook's history, built by volunteers, cared for by generations and rooted in community pride." Boat Owner's Association of the United States (BoatUS) vice president of public affairs, Scott Croft, along similar lines, noted the Red Hook Boat Club previously sat at the site of a bulk oil storage facility, but was built, Croft said, through volunteerism, and "they're all still the same way." Over the past 23 years he's been with the association, which serves due-paying boat owners' needs, he said people are coming back to waters that may have been formerly polluted. But this is a working person's club, a place people can "escape with their families for a few hours." Red Hook resident Lisa Pullaro is worried about what may come next after the boat club. The "speed and zeal" of the boat club eminent domain proceedings by the town is troubling to her, when there are other nearby parks like Poet's Walk Park in Red Hook or Tivoli Bays, which she said offers canoe access. Elijah Bender, a boat club member, said he is "appalled" the town is trying to take away this asset entitled to the 100 working-class families on their "little sliver of the Hudson River." More: Poughkeepsie man shot by police while holding sword: Body camera footage released Town of Red Hook zoning law annulled The boat club's original lawsuit with the state Supreme Court alleged the town's zoning amendment eliminating"marinas" as a permitted use, adding a new definition for "boat clubs," and permitting "public parks, including docks and boat ramps" in all zoning districts, were procedural violations, overreach of authority and lack of comprehensive planning justification. Judge Maria D. Rosa ultimately ruled in favor of the boat club on two of its six lawsuit claims. First, the court ruled the new definition of "boat club" was outside the scope of zoning authority, due to including a requirement for "bona fide dues-paying members." The court found this was an impermissible attempt by the town to regulate the internal operations and financing of a non-profit corporation. Secondly, the court ruled the town violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The town stated the zoning amendments would have no significant environmental impact. However, the court found that the town improperly "segmented the SEQRA review process" by not disclosing its intent to take the boat club for a park when the town looked at rezoning. In failing to consider the "end uses," the court ruled, the town did not take the required "hard look" at the potential environmental impacts. In the end, the Town of Red Hook's February zoning amendment was set aside. What happens next? The town board is considering its options, "recognizing that it may just be easier to resubmit the law for re-approval with a couple of minor tweaks," McKeon said. "The Board will at its next meeting consider whether to appeal, reintroduce or both." In an effort to move forward in a manner that positively includes the town, the boat club and Red Hook residents, McKeon stated, "the town continues to reach out to the Boat Club to meet on how best to accomplish this." More: Dutchess County Fair food readers poll: See least, most voted for items However, he continued, the boat club has only recently agreed to one meeting "a few weeks back," and "the town has continued to reach out to the boat club in an effort to avoid litigation." Ross said the eminent domain proceedings disregard the voices of the Red Hook constituents and is a "pivotal moment, not just for the Red Hook Boat Club, but for every citizen who believes in fairness, transparency and accountability in local government." He believes the "tide has turned" in the boats club's dispute with the Town of Red Hook, but in the meantime, they will continue to speak out and ensure the town is "held to the highest standard." This article originally appeared on Poughkeepsie Journal: Town, Red Hook Boat Club spar over eminent domain. Court issues ruling Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans sue to block Newsom's fast-track California redistricting plan
Republican state legislators in California filed suit on Tuesday to block a mid-year redistricting plan meant to counter Texas's effort to redraw congressional district lines. The emergency petition argues that the process being used in the California assembly violates laws requiring a 30-day period between the introduction of legislation and voting on it. 'Instead of a months-long transparent and participatory process overseen by an independent citizens redistricting commission for such a sensitive matter, the public would be presented instead with an up or down vote on maps unilaterally prepared in secret by the Legislature,' states the filing on behalf of senators Tony Strickland and Suzette Martinez Valladares, assemblymember Tri Ta and assemblymember Kathryn Sanchez. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, announced his state's redistricting plan last week in terms on social media mocking Donald Trump's flamboyance, intent on using the voting power of the US's most populous state to counteract Texas's redrawn map, which would be expected to deliver a net gain of five congressional seats to Republicans in 2026. Newsom praised the California effort on Monday, calling it a necessary response to Trump's influence over redistricting in Texas and other Republican-led states. 'We are not going to sit idle while they command Texas and other states to rig the next election to keep power,' Newsom said, adding that the proposal gives Californians 'a choice to fight back'. To do so in time for a special election in November, the state assembly must pass the plan this year. As has been a common practice near the end of legislative terms, California lawmakers took an existing bill introduced earlier in the session and gutted it of its language, replacing it with legislation that overrides the state's neutral redistricting commission to present maps to voters. On Tuesday, a spokesperson for Newsom said the governor was unconcerned with the legal challenge seeking to blunt his redistricting effort. 'Republicans are filing a deeply unserious (and truly laughable) lawsuit to stop Americans from voting?' Brandon Richards, the spokesperson, said. 'We're neither surprised, nor worried.' The Mandeep Dhillon law firm filing the suit was previously owned by Harmeet Dhillon, who is now assistant attorney general overseeing the US Department of Justice civil rights division. Dhillon was known for her efforts to sue California's university system to overturn policies which barred controversial conservative speakers from appearing. She sold her firm to her brother Mandeep Singh Dhillon after Trump nominated her to take over civil rights enforcement in his administration. The suit does not challenge 'gut and amend' in principle, but rather asks the court 'to enforce an external constitutional constraint against the Legislature to protect the people's rights'. Internal polling presented to lawmakers showed voters favored the measure 52% to 41%, with 7% undecided, according to the local television station KCRA. Republicans in California condemned the proposal as an assault on the state's voter-approved independent redistricting commission and said they plan to introduce legislation that advocates for creating similar map-drawing bodies in all 50 states. 'Governor Newsom, this is nothing more than a power grab,' Strickland said during a Monday news conference in Sacramento. He warned the redistricting tit-for-tat sets a dangerous precedent that will not be easily undone. 'The Golden Gate Bridge toll was supposed to be temporary,' he added. 'You're still paying the toll.' The legislature could hold floor votes to send the measure to voters for approval as soon as Thursday, KCRA reported. House Republicans currently hold a razor-thin three-seat majority in the US House and Trump has pushed to redraw district boundaries ahead of next year's midterm elections, in which the president's party typically loses seats. Republicans are also poised to redraw congressional districts in Ohio, Missouri and Florida, as well as potentially Indiana.
