The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments.  Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.
Note: The first two cases arise out of the same underlying facts and procedure. The parties filed separate petitions for relief in this Court.

SC95976
State ex rel. Church & Dwight Co. Inc. v. The Honorable William B. Collins
Cass County
Challenge to timeliness, amendment of claims brought under state’s human rights act

Listen to the oral argument: SC95976 audio file
Church & Dwight was represented during arguments by Jennifer Oldvader of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC in Kansas City; Mulvey was represented by Todd Johnson of Votava Nantz & Johnson LLC in Kansas City.

Focus Workforce Management Inc., a staffing agency that assigns temporary workers to manufacturing and logistic companies, hired Alicia Mulvey in October 2014 and assigned her to temporary work at Church & Dwight Company Inc.’s manufacturing plant in Harrisonville. Mulvey filed a claim in July 2015 with the state’s human rights commission, alleging discrimination and retaliation. Specifically, she alleged she was subjected to discriminatory comments and conduct at Church & Dwight and, after she reported the conduct to both companies, she was terminated and not given permanent employment at Church & Dwight. In February 2016, the commission issued Mulvey a right-to-sue letter advising she had 90 days to bring a civil action under the state’s human rights act. Mulvey filed her petition against the two companies, alleging claims under the act, 91 days after the right-to-sue letter issued. In June 2016, the companies moved to dismiss the petition, arguing Mulvey’s claims were time-barred. The circuit court in August 2016 granted Mulvey leave to amend her lawsuit to add negligence and wrongful discharge claims based on the same facts underlying her original claims. Church & Dwight and Focus Workforce filed separate petitions seeking relief from this Court.

This case presents two primary questions for this Court regarding whether the companies are entitled to writs prohibiting the circuit court from allowing Mulvey to proceed with her claims. One question is whether Mulvey’s claims under the human rights act are time-barred and should have been dismissed. Related issues include whether the 90-day filing period begins to run from the date the right-to-sue notice is issued; whether Rule 44.01(e) extends the filing period when the right-to-sue notice is sent by mail; and whether the principal of equitable tolling can save untimely claims. Another question is whether the circuit court should have given Mulvey leave to add negligence and wrongful discharge claims or whether state statutes preempt such claims.


SC95976_Church_&_Dwight_brief
SC95976_Mulvey_brief
SC95976_Church_&_Dwight_reply_brief


SC95977
State ex rel. Focus Workforce Management Inc., et al. v. The Honorable William B. Collins
Cass County
Challenge to timeliness, amendment of claims brought under state’s human rights act

Listen to the oral argument: SC95977 audio file
Focus Workforce Management was represented during arguments by Jennifer Hannah of Lathrop & Gage LLP in Kansas City; Mulvey was represented by Todd Johnson of Votava Nantz & Johnson LLC in Kansas City.

 See summary for SC95976, above.

SC95977_Focus_Workforce_Management_et_al._brief
SC95977_Mulvey_brief
SC95977_Focus_Workforce_Management_et_al._reply_brief


SC96038
Thomas Dennis and Sonya Cherry v. Riezman Berger P.C. and Mercy Hospital Jefferson
St. Louis County
Challenge to dismissal of claims against debt collectors for adding post-judgment interest to garnishments

Listen to the oral argument: SC96038 audio file
Dennis and Cherry were represented during arguments by Alexander Cornwell, an attorney in St. Louis; Riezman Berger was represented by Nelson Mitten of Riezman Berger PC in St. Louis.

This appeal involves consolidated debt-collection actions filed in Jefferson County by Mercy Hospital Jefferson and its debt collection attorneys, Riezman Berger PC, against Thomas Dennis and Sonya Cherry for past-due medical bills. Mercy and Riezman Berger alleged Dennis owed $850. Dennis consented to judgment against him, agreeing to pay $850 plus court costs. The consent judgment, which did not address post-judgment interest, became final in May 2014. By January 2015, Dennis had paid $300 toward the judgment, leaving a judgment balance of $550 plus approximately $123 in court costs. The law firm ultimately garnished nearly $860 from Dennis’ bank account, placing the account into a negative balance. Similarly, Mercy and Riezman Berger alleged Cherry owed approximately $23,325. The circuit court entered a default judgment against Cherry in November 2013. The judgment did not award post-judgment interest. The law firm subsequently garnished monies – including $350 in interest – from Cherry. In separate lawsuits filed in St. Louis County, Dennis and Cherry sued Riezman Berger for unlawful collection conduct under the federal fair debt collections practices act and sued Mercy and Riezman Berger for unfair business practices under the state’s merchandising practices act. The hospital and law firm moved to dismiss both lawsuits. The circuit court consolidated the cases and, in January 2016, the court dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice (precluding it from being refiled). Dennis and Cherry appeal.

This appeal presents several questions for this Court involving whether the consolidated case should have been dismissed. One question involves whether the federal act permits collection of post-judgment interest, whether state law allows interest to attach automatically to non-tort judgments, and whether the hospital and law firm violated state law by including post-judgment interest in their garnishment actions. A related issue involves the timeliness of the claims under the federal act. Another question is whether Riezman Berger falsely represented the amount of the debts, in violation of the federal act, by failing to disclose that interest was accruing and failing to credit all of Dennis’ payments. An additional question involves whether Cherry’s claim for wrongful garnishment should be allowed to proceed.

SC96038_Dennis_and_Cherry_brief_filed_in_ED
SC96038_Riezman_Berger_brief
SC96038_Dennis_and_Cherry_reply_brief


SC96152
State ex rel. Willie Johnson v. The Honorable Calea Stovall-Reid
St. Louis city
Circuit court’s authority to revoke probation after term was scheduled to end

Listen to the oral argument: SC96152 audio file
Johnson was represented during arguments by Brian Cooke, an attorney in Clayton; the state was represented by Devon Vincent of the circuit attorney’s office in St. Louis.

In September 2013, Willie Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful use of a weapon, and the circuit court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for three years. The state alleges the circuit court in July 2015 extended Johnson’s probation for two years, while Johnson alleges his optimal and earned discharge dates fell in the fall of 2016. In June 2016, Johnson’s probation officer filed a report alleging Johnson had violated two conditions of his probation. In August 2016, the state filed new charges against Johnson and the circuit court suspended his probation, issued a warrant for his arrest and scheduled a revocation hearing for October 2016. The circuit court later continued the revocation hearing to December 2016. Johnson subsequently moved to be discharged from probation, alleging his discharge dates had passed and the circuit court had lost authority to revoke his probation. Following a hearing, the circuit court overruled his motion. Johnson seeks relief from this Court.

This case presents two primary questions for this Court involving whether the circuit court continues to have jurisdiction over Johnson. One involves whether Johnson’s probation ended by operation of law in October 2016 and whether, before that date, the circuit court made every reasonable effort to conduct the revocation hearing. Related issues include whether the record supports reasonable grounds for continuing the hearing beyond the expiration of Johnson’s probationary term and whether Johnson was required to object to the court continuing his case beyond the expiration of his probation. Another question involves what effect, if any, the circuit court’s order suspending probation had on Johnson’s earned discharge date.

SC96152_Johnson_brief
SC96152_State_brief

Supreme Court - Dockets