ST. LOUIS (AP) - A judge on Tuesday began weighing a business-backed lawsuit that seeks to stop St. Louis from incrementally raising its minimum wage, ultimately deciding whether it's legal for the city to have a wage higher than what the state commands.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Steven Ohmer deferred an immediate ruling after hearing two hours of debate over the lawsuit's request for a permanent injunction that would halt the phased-in increase from beginning Oct. 15, when the minimum wage in the city is to rise 60 cents to $8.25. The measure signed in late August by Mayor Francis Slay calls for the minimum wage in St. Louis to reach $11 an hour by 2018.
Ohmer, who said without elaborating that he would decide the matter quickly, stressed his ruling would not discuss the merits of the minimum wage but instead address the new St. Louis ordinance's constitutionality, calling the topic "a very volatile issue in many ways."
Groups that include the Missouri Chamber of Commerce are suing, challenging the legality of St. Louis' actions and insisting the increase would hurt business.
Missouri's Republican-led Legislature last month voted to overturn Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon's veto on a measure banning municipalities from enacting higher minimum wages or employment benefits than the state, meaning cities no longer have the option to hike those wages on a local level. However, an exception in the law that takes effect later this month allows wage ordinances on the books before Aug. 28 to stay.
Missouri's current minimum wage is $7.65 and adjusts annually with inflation.
Elected officials in St. Louis rushed to raise wages before that deadline in case Republican lawmakers overturned Nixon's veto, which they did. Slay signed St. Louis' measure on Aug. 28, narrowly meeting the state bill's deadline.
During Tuesday's hearing, an attorney for business groups pressing for the injunction argued St. Louis' measure supplants and is inconsistent with state law, exceeds the city's authority under its charter by not being a uniquely local concern, and "is extremely confusing and conflicts with a whole host of areas of state law."
"This cause of action (in the measure) is not for the benefit of the city," Jane Dueker told Ohmer. "(St. Louis city leaders) are trying to decide what the contract is going to be between the employer and the employee. That's for the Legislature" to decide.
Robert Epperson, a lawyer with a St. Louis law firm representing the city, countered that St. Louis acted within its rights, calling the issue a local one in that the amount of earnings someone may need in St. Louis for basic needs may vary from elsewhere in the state. Epperson also argued the city met the new state law's Aug. 28 deadline for ordinances to be "in effect" by that time.
"What's beyond dispute is that the purpose of minimum wage legislation is to prohibit employers from paying too little," essentially "protecting the rights of those who toil," Epperson said.