Workforce Bulletin

A Case Study of Missouri v. Starbucks Corp. and the Compliance Challenges Ahead

The Missouri Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office recently learned this lesson in Missouri v. Starbucks Corp., when its Title VII anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) case against Starbucks was dismissed by a federal district court judge.

Only two months after Missouri’s statewide paid sick and safe time law became effective, Governor Mike Kehoe signed House Bill 567, which will repeal the earned paid sick time benefit effective August 28, 2025.

As we previously reported, Missouri was one of three states to adopt a sick leave obligation for private employers, adopted through ballot measures during the 2024 election. By commencing leave accrual and usage on May 1, 2025, Missouri was the first of the three states to require private employers to provide paid sick time to all employees within the state. Currently, Missouri employers must provide one hour of paid sick and safe leave (PSSL) for every 30 hours worked.

On Election Day 2024, voters in six states weighed in on ballot initiatives that addressed several employment law topics. Among these were propositions to change state minimum wages and mandate paid sick leave for workers. The outcomes were mixed.

Alaska

In Alaska, voters passed by a narrow margin Ballot Measure 1, which will increase the state’s minimum wage from the current rate of $11.73 per hour to $13.00 per hour on July 1, 2025. It will subsequently rise to $14.00 per hour on July 1, 2026, and $15.00 per hour on July 1, 2027. Increases thereafter will be calculated based on inflation.

Ballot Measure 1 included other provisions affecting workplaces. Its passage means that many employers will need to comply with new paid sick leave requirements. Starting July 1, 2025, eligible employees will accrue a minimum of one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked and will be allowed to use at least 40 and up to 56 hours of accrued paid sick leave annually, depending on how many employees work for their employer.

A third portion of Ballot Measure 1, also effective July 1, 2025, prohibits so-called “captive audience” meetings. The new law will prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who refuse to attend company meetings about political or religious topics.

As we previously reported, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) interim final rule (“the Rule”) requiring full COVID-19 vaccination for staff and others at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers (i.e., the “vaccine mandate”) has been challenged in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Missouri (“the Missouri Court”) and the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division (“the Louisiana Court”).  As of the date of this writing, both Courts have granted preliminary injunctions placing the Rule on hold.

On November 29, 2021, the Missouri Court granted a preliminary injunction of the Rule, which applies to the coalition of ten states [1] that filed the challenge there. The following day, the Louisiana Court entered a similar injunction, which applies to the remaining forty states.

The Decisions

In the last several years, a growing number of states and municipalities have passed “ban the box” laws that to varying degrees prohibit employers from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal background until later in the hiring process and/or restrict employers from using certain criminal conviction information in connection with their hiring decisions.  Recently, St. Louis, Missouri joined this group, while California and Hawaii expanded their existing prohibitions on criminal history inquiries.

St. Louis, Missouri

Under the St. Louis ban the box Ordinance (the ...

Following up on our recent post about a business interruption insurance decision by a Washington D.C. court, a federal judge in Missouri ruled last month, in Studio 417, Inc., et al. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Comp., No. 20-cv-03127-SRB, that businesses can sue their insurance carrier for business interruption losses caused by COVID-19.

Plaintiffs, owners of a hair salon and various restaurants (the “Insureds”) purchased an all risks policy from Cincinnati Insurance Company (the “Insurer”). As a result of losses sustained due to COVID-19, the Insureds sought business ...

After a brief, two-month hiatus, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (“WHD”) has issued another round of opinion letters answering various questions submitted by the public.  Specifically, these opinion letters address the calculation of overtime pay for nondiscretionary bonuses, the application of the highly compensated employee exemption to paralegals, and rounding hours worked under the Service Contract Act (“SCA”).  This guidance marks the first issued by the new Wage and Hour Administrator Cheryl Stanton, who has been in the seat since April.

On January 15, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, a case concerning the enforceability of arbitration agreements.

Petitioner New Prime Inc. (“New Prime”) is an interstate trucking company that engaged Dominic Oliveira to perform work as a driver pursuant to an “Independent Contractor Operating Agreement,” containing both an arbitration clause and a delegation clause giving the arbitrator authority to decide threshold questions of arbitrability.

Oliveira filed a putative class action against New Prime in federal ...

The Missouri Supreme Court has overturned a lower court’s ruling that St. Louis’ minimum wage ordinance is invalid, finding that the ordinance is not preempted by the state law.

St. Louis City’s Ordinance 70078 (“the Ordinance”) provides for a series of increases to the minimum wage for employees working within the boundaries of St. Louis. The plaintiffs argued that Ordinance 70078 was preempted by the state minimum wage law.  The plaintiffs contended that state law affirmatively authorized employers to pay as little as $7.65 per hour, the state minimum wage rate.

A trial ...