## Facts

- Missouri law required employers to pay a statewide minimum wage under § 290.502.
- In 2015, the City of St. Louis enacted Ordinance 70078 establishing a citywide minimum wage with graduated increases starting at $8.25/hour and rising to $11/hour by January 1, 2018, with later indexing.
- Cooperative Home Care, Inc. and other employers sued to enjoin enforcement, claiming state law preempted the ordinance and the City lacked authority to regulate minimum wage.
- Employers relied primarily on: (1) § 67.1571 (asserted statutory preemption of local minimum-wage ordinances), and (2) § 71.010 (barring municipal ordinances “inconsistent” with state law), along with arguments grounded in statewide concern and limits on municipal power.
- The circuit court held § 67.1571 could not preempt because it was enacted in violation of the Missouri Constitution’s single-subject rule, but still invalidated the ordinance as inconsistent with § 290.502 under § 71.010.
- The City appealed the invalidation; employers cross-appealed on preemption and municipal-authority grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether § 67.1571 was validly enacted under the Missouri Constitution’s single-subject requirement and could preempt a local minimum-wage ordinance.
2. Whether § 290.502 impliedly preempted local minimum-wage regulation (field preemption) or barred higher local wages.
3. Whether Ordinance 70078 was “inconsistent” with state law under § 71.010 because it required wages above the state minimum.
4. Whether a home-rule city may enact a minimum-wage ordinance under municipal police power absent express or implied state preemption.

## Decision

- The Missouri Supreme Court (en banc) affirmed the ruling that § 67.1571 was unconstitutional under the single-subject rule and therefore could not preempt the ordinance.
- The Court reversed the judgment invalidating Ordinance 70078 under § 71.010 and § 290.502.
- The Court held § 290.502 did not occupy the field of minimum-wage regulation and did not prohibit local ordinances requiring higher wages.
- The Court held the ordinance was not “inconsistent” with state law because it imposed additional requirements without permitting what state law forbids or forbidding what state law permits.
- The Court concluded the City acted within its home-rule and police powers in enacting the ordinance and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A statute enacted in violation of Mo. Const. art. III, § 23 (single-subject rule) is void and cannot serve as a valid source of state-law preemption.
- A statewide minimum-wage statute that establishes a minimum floor, without clear legislative intent to displace local regulation, does not impliedly preempt higher municipal minimum-wage requirements.
- Under § 71.010, a municipal ordinance is “inconsistent” with state law only when it directly conflicts (e.g., permits what state law forbids or forbids what state law expressly permits); supplementary local regulation is not inconsistent merely because it is more demanding.
- A Missouri home-rule city may regulate wages as an exercise of police power, absent express preemption, implied preemption, or direct conflict with state law.

## Conclusion

The Missouri Supreme Court upheld St. Louis’s minimum-wage ordinance, ruling that the state minimum-wage law did not preempt higher local wages, the general inconsistency statute did not bar supplementary local requirements, and the City acted within home-rule police powers; the Court also held the asserted statutory preemption provision was unconstitutional under the single-subject rule.


Cooperative Home Care, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 514 S.W.3d 571 (Mo. 2017)