BSCR Firm News/Blogs Feedhttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10en-us17 Feb 2026 00:00:00 -0800firmwisehttps://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssBaker Sterchi Highlighted in KMOV First Alert Forward Story on Downtown St. Louishttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145812&format=xml13 Feb 2026Firm News<p>Baker Sterchi Cowden &amp; Rice was recently highlighted in KMOV/News4 First Alert Forward coverage, &ldquo;<a href="https://www.firstalert4.com/2026/02/13/first-alert-forward-keeping-companies-downtown-office-trends-change/?outputType=amp">Keeping companies downtown as office trends change</a>,&rdquo; reported by journalist Nathan Vickers. The written piece and accompanying video examined organizations maintaining a presence in downtown St. Louis as workplace trends continue to evolve following the COVID-19 pandemic.</p> <p>Firm Members Mike Hunter and Teresa Young were interviewed as part of the segment, which addressed the firm&rsquo;s decision to remain downtown, and the role employee feedback played in that decision. The coverage also noted the accessibility and amenities associated with the firm&rsquo;s downtown location.</p> <p>The segment reflects the firm&rsquo;s continued commitment to maintaining a strong presence in downtown St. Louis, supporting collaboration among the firm&rsquo;s team while remaining accessible to clients and the broader business community.</p> <p>Hunter is the Member-in Charge of the St. Louis office and focuses his practice on product liability matters throughout the Midwest. Young focuses her practice on insurance defense, coverage and appellate matters.</p> First Alert Forward is a KMOV initiative focused on the future of St. Louis, highlighting growth, progress and innovation across the region.https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Attorney, Kansas Cityhttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145816&format=xml13 Feb 2026Job OpeningsOur Kansas City office <font color="#3e3e60">has an opportunity for an&nbsp;attorney with at least five years of experience in insurance coverage/bad faith litigation defense</font>. View the job description&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bakersterchi.com/B07AF5/assets/files/documents/Job%20Posting%20-%20Coverage%20Attorney%20-%20Kansas%20City.pdf"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">here</span></a>.https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Billing Specialist, Kansas Cityhttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145804&format=xml12 Feb 2026Job OpeningsOur Kansas City office <font color="#3e3e60">is seeking a motivated and skilled&nbsp;billing specialist within the accounting department</font>. View the job description&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bakersterchi.com/B07AF5/assets/files/documents/Job%20Posting%20-%20Billing%20Specialist%20-%20Kansas%20City.pdf"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">here</span></a>.https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Missouri Court of Appeals Affirms Immunity in Fatal 2019 Central High School Shooting Casehttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145809&format=xml12 Feb 2026Missouri Law Blog<p>ABSTRACT: Following a high school basketball game, a youngster was fatally shot on school grounds, and the victim&rsquo;s mother filed a wrongful death action against the Kansas City Public Schools, an off-duty police officer, and others. The Circuit Court of Jackson County granted a motion to dismiss in favor of the public-entity defendants, based on sovereign and official immunity, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.</p> <div> <p><b><u>Background</u></b></p> <p>A non-student minor (&ldquo;Victim&rdquo;) was fatally shot on the grounds of Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri, following a confrontation during an evening basketball game. After the individuals involved were escorted from the building by an off-duty Kansas City Police Department (&ldquo;KCPD&rdquo;) officer, the Victim was shot on school property by a participant in the earlier altercation. The Victim&rsquo;s mother filed a wrongful death action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri against Kansas City Public Schools (&ldquo;KCPS&rdquo;), individual school administrators and security personnel, two KCPD officers, and the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners (&ldquo;BOPC&rdquo;), asserting claims for wrongful death, negligence, breach of ministerial duties, recklessness, and vicarious liability. The defendants moved to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings based on sovereign and official immunity.</p> <p>After the circuit court entered judgment in favor of the public-entity defendants, the Victim&rsquo;s mother appealed. The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District affirmed, <a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/file/WD/Opinion_WD87823.pdf">holding</a> that sovereign immunity was not waived by the existence of a self-retention liability fund maintained by KCPD and the BOPC, and that the conduct of the KCPD officers and Kansas City Public School officials was protected by official immunity because the cited policies involved discretionary judgment and the petition alleged no facts demonstrating intent to injure the victim.</p> <p><b><u>Sovereign Immunity, the Existence of Liability Insurance or Self-Insurance and Potential Waiver</u></b></p> <p>On appeal, the Victim&rsquo;s mother first argued that the BOPC waived sovereign immunity under section 537.610 by adopting a self-insurance plan covering the claims at issue. Under Missouri law, sovereign immunity protects public entities engaged in governmental functions, including BOPC through its operation of a police force. Among other exceptions under Missouri law, sovereign immunity may be waived through the purchase of liability insurance or the adoption of a self-insurance plan. Such a waiver is narrowly construed. A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing both the existence of self-insurance coverage and that a plaintiff&rsquo;s claims fall within its scope. The Victim&rsquo;s mother relied on a statement on KCPD&rsquo;s website describing the BOPC as &ldquo;self-insured,&rdquo; deposition testimony from a BOPC representative, and the existence of a liability self-retention fund within KCPD&rsquo;s annual budget.</p> <p>The Court of Appeals examined the KCPD Board&rsquo;s &ldquo;Liability Self-Retention General Fund Subsidiary Account&rdquo; (the &ldquo;KCPD Fund&rdquo;) maintained at the time in question. The KCPD fund was created to manage potential liability exposure and was financed primarily through annual transfers from Kansas City&rsquo;s General Fund, along with potential reimbursement from the State Legal Expense Fund (&ldquo;SLEF&rdquo;). The KCPD Fund simply provided for appropriated funds including those that could potentially be available under the SLEF, and under Missouri law, the SLEF does not constitute insurance. The Court found adoption of a &ldquo;self-insurance plan&rdquo; requires something more than merely establishing statutorily mandated budgetary reserves for mandated liability. Furthermore, the scope of any waiver of sovereign immunity is limited to the amounts and purposes provided in any self-insurance plan <i>duly adopted</i> by the governing body. Nothing in the KCPD Fund&rsquo;s description indicated formal adoption of a self-insurance program and the Victim&rsquo;s mother presented no evidence that Kansas City passed an ordinance duly adopting a plan of self-insurance for KCPD.</p> <p>The Court further held that the KCPD website statement and the BOPC representative&rsquo;s deposition testimony did not establish waiver. The website language did not constitute proof of a self-insurance plan, and the testimony reflected only the representative&rsquo;s personal understanding of the KCPD Fund&rsquo;s purpose.</p> <p><b><u>Official Immunity, its Application to School District Employees and Police Officers, and Potential Waiver</u></b></p> <p>The Victim&rsquo;s mother next argues that KCPS Individuals and the KCPD officers are not entitled to official immunity. Official immunity protects a public official from liability if that official acts within the course of his [or her] official duties and without malice. The Victim&rsquo;s mother&rsquo;s argument attacks the two narrow exceptions where official immunity does not apply: (1) when a public official fails to perform a ministerial duty required by law, or (2) when a public official acts in bad faith or with malice. The Victim&rsquo;s mother claims that there are three ministerial duties the KCPD officers and the KCPS officials breached: (1) a general policy not to place individuals in &ldquo;dangerous or potentially dangerous&rdquo; situations; (2) a &ldquo;parental hold policy&rdquo; requiring students to be held inside the school until a parent picked them up; and (3) a policy to ensure &ldquo;combating individuals&rdquo; are separated while on KCPS premises.</p> <p>A ministerial duty has been defined by the Missouri Supreme Court as one in which a certain act is to be performed in obedience to the law, without regard to the public official&rsquo;s judgment or opinion concerning the property or impropriety of the acts to be performed. Thus, when any slight discretion exists for the public official, the duty is not ministerial. The Court of Appeals found the alleged duties described by the Victim&rsquo;s mother required the use of discretion in interpreting and enforcing such policies and thus did not fall into the narrow ministerial exception to official immunity.</p> <p>Regarding the &ldquo;bad faith or malice&rdquo; exception to official immunity, the Victim&rsquo;s mother argues KCPS officials and KCPD officers acted with &ldquo;reckless indifference to the rights of others&rdquo; and/or with &ldquo;conscious wrongdoing.&rdquo; Even a discretionary act is not protected by official immunity where such conduct is done with malice or corruption. However, reckless conduct alone, as plead by the Victim&rsquo;s mother does not satisfy malice; there must be evidence demonstrating actual intent to injure or prejudice a plaintiff. The Victim&rsquo;s mother failed to plead any specific factual allegations that the KCPS officials or KCPD officers intended for the minor victim to be injured.</p> <p><b><u>Outcome and Lessons Learned</u></b></p> Thus, the circuit court&rsquo;s judgment was affirmed in all respects. This decision reinforces narrow exceptions to sovereign and official immunity under Missouri law. Sovereign immunity is not waived merely because public entity budgets funds for potential liability or maintains a self-retention account. Rather, a plaintiff must identify an insurance policy or self-insurance plan duly adopted by ordinance or other formal governmental action; informal practices, website statements, or employee testimony are insufficient and will not be taken as true. The case also confirms the narrow scope of the ministerial-duty and bad-faith exceptions to official immunity, emphasizing that any degree of discretion by a public official defeats a ministerial-duty claim and that bad faith or malice requires an <i>intent</i> to prejudice or injure, conclusory statements of reckless indifference or disregard alone do not suffice.</div>https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Legal Administrative Assistant, Portlandhttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145784&format=xml11 Feb 2026Job OpeningsOur Portland office is seeking&nbsp;a highly motivated and&nbsp;skilled legal administrative assistant. View the job description&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bakersterchi.com/B07AF5/assets/files/documents/Job%20Posting%20-%20Legal%20Administrative%20Assistant%20-%20Portland.pdf"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">here</span></a>.https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Complete Defense Verdict for Retailer in Kansas Consumer Protection Act Casehttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145789&format=xml11 Feb 2026Results<p>On Jan. 22, 2026, Baker Sterchi attorneys secured a complete defense verdict in a case brought under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The firm represented a retailer in a dispute arising from a $6,200 purchase.</p> <p>The case presented significant risk, because if the plaintiffs had prevailed, they would have been entitled to recover attorneys&rsquo; fees potentially reaching well into the six figures. The Act also permits statutory penalties of $10,000 to $20,000 per violation, and plaintiffs alleged 14 violations. The jury was further asked to consider punitive damages.</p> Following extensive motion practice and a three-day jury trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict in favor of the retailer.https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Baker Sterchi Welcomes Brian Maxey in Seattlehttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145782&format=xml10 Feb 2026Firm News<p>Baker Sterchi Cowden &amp; Rice welcomes Brian Maxey as senior counsel in the firm&rsquo;s Seattle office. With more than two decades of public-sector experience as a litigator, policing executive, consultant and member of federal monitoring teams, Maxey focuses on risk management planning, crisis response and strategic litigation for public-sector clients.</p> <p>Maxey has extensive experience serving as lead counsel in Section 1983 matters for public-sector clients and previously held executive leadership roles overseeing policy, training, investigations and administrative operations for a major city police department. He is active in several public-sector organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Police Executive Research Forum, and serves on the National Association of Professional Staff in Public Safety Board of Advisors.</p> Maxey earned his law degree from Fordham University School of Law, an M.P.A. from the New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service and his undergraduate degree from Occidental College. He is licensed to practice in Washington, California and New York, and before the Supreme Court of the United States.https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Megan Stumph-Turner Article on Pixel Litigation Published in MBA Magazinehttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145783&format=xml10 Feb 2026Publications<p>Baker Sterchi Cowden &amp; Rice Member Megan Stumph-Turner&rsquo;s article, &ldquo;<a href="https://simplebooklet.com/themissouribankerjanuaryfebruary2026#page=23">Pixels, Privacy and the Price of Data</a>,&rdquo; appears in the January/February edition of Missouri Bankers Association&rsquo;s publication, <i>The Missouri Banker</i>, examining the growing web of privacy laws and legal risks associated with pixel tracking technology.</p> <p>Based in the firm&rsquo;s Kansas City office, Stumph-Turner focuses her practice on civil litigation, including creditors&rsquo; rights, financial services, real estate, construction and commercial litigation. She chairs the firm&rsquo;s Financial Services and Real Estate Practice Groups. She also serves on the steering committees for ALFA International&rsquo;s Business Litigation and Women&rsquo;s Initiative Practice Groups and is the immediate past president and a current board member of the Earl E. O&rsquo;Connor American Inn of Court.</p> The Missouri Bankers Association is a statewide trade organization representing nearly 225 banks, savings and loans and trust companies across Missouri. <i>The Missouri Banker</i> is its bimonthly publication.https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Missouri Federal Court Rejects Conditional Certification in FLSA Meal Break Casehttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145768&format=xml06 Feb 2026Employment & Labor Law Blog<p>ABSTRACT: A Missouri federal court declined to certify an FLSA meal break collective action where plaintiffs relied on potential interruptions rather than evidence of unpaid work.</p> <div> <p>On December 10, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a decision that provides useful guidance for healthcare employers and wage-and-hour practitioners. In <i><a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/missouri/moedce/4:2024cv00786/212469/52/0.pdf">Kaiser v. St. Luke&rsquo;s Episcopal-Presbyterian Hospitals, Inc</a>.</i>, the court denied conditional certification of a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action alleging unpaid meal breaks for nurses and technicians.</p> <p>Even under the FLSA&rsquo;s lenient conditional certification standard, speculation and generalized theories are insufficient. <i>Kaiser</i> reinforces that plaintiffs must present evidence demonstrating a single, FLSA-violating compensation practice applicable to the proposed class.</p> <p><b>Background</b></p> <p>The plaintiff, a registered nurse, alleged that St. Luke&rsquo;s violated the FLSA by failing to compensate nurses and technicians for meal periods. According to the complaint, because employees remained responsible for patient care and could be interrupted during breaks, all unpaid meal periods were compensable work time under the FLSA.</p> <p>Like many healthcare employers, St. Luke&rsquo;s historically used an automatic 30-minute meal break deduction but later implemented an attestation process. That process allowed employees to override the deduction and receive pay for worked meal periods.</p> <p>The plaintiff sought conditional class certification under 29 U.S.C. &sect; 216(b), asserting that nurses and technicians were similarly situated because each meal break was &ldquo;subject to interruption.&rdquo;</p> <p><b>Legal Standard</b></p> <p>At the notice stage of an FLSA collective action, the court does not evaluate the merits of the claims; however, the plaintiff must still substantially allege that proposed members were victims of a single decision, policy, or plan that violated the FLSA. While courts do not weigh credibility or resolve factual disputes at this stage, they require more than unsupported assertions or statements lacking personal knowledge.</p> <p>In the Eighth Circuit, courts analyze unpaid meal break claims using the &ldquo;for-the-benefit-of-the employer&rdquo; standard. This standard is flexible and allows courts to consider different factors depending on the nature of the business involved. Under this framework, a meal period is compensable only if it is spent predominantly for the employer&rsquo;s benefit, rather than allowing the employee to use the time effectively for their own purposes.</p> <p><b>Denial of Conditional Certification</b></p> <p>The court rejected the plaintiff&rsquo;s theory that the mere <i>possibility</i> of interruption transforms an unpaid meal break into compensable work time. Relying on Eighth Circuit precedent, the court emphasized that it is neither realistic nor required under the FLSA for employers to compensate employees for meal periods during which they are relieved of duties except for being on call to respond to emergencies.</p> <p>The court highlighted several evidentiary gaps that proved fatal to the plaintiff&rsquo;s motion:</p> <ul type="disc"> <li><b>No evidence of meaningful restrictions.</b> There was no evidence that employees were required to remain on campus, stay in a specific location, or obtain permission to leave during meal breaks.</li> <li><b>No evidence of frequent interruptions.</b>&nbsp;The record lacked evidence showing how often interruptions occurred, if at all.</li> <li><b>Evidence of compliant policies.</b>&nbsp;The employer maintained a process allowing employees to receive compensation for meal breaks that they worked.</li> </ul> <p>The plaintiff showed only the possibility of interruption, which the court held was insufficient to establish that meal periods primarily benefited the employer.</p> <p>The court also distinguished a prior healthcare decision in which conditional certification was granted. In that case, the plaintiffs presented evidence that they were required to continuously provide patient care during unpaid meal breaks and were effectively unable to disengage from their duties. By contrast, the <i>Kaiser</i> plaintiff offered no evidence that St. Luke&rsquo;s knowingly required employees to work through meal periods without compensation. The existence of the attestation process further undermined any claim of a uniform, FLSA-violating practice.</p> <p><b>Key Takeaways for Employers</b></p> <p><i>Kaiser</i> reinforces several important principles:</p> <ul type="disc"> <li>Automatic meal break deductions are not <i>per se</i>&nbsp;unlawful under the FLSA</li> <li>On-call status, standing alone, does not make a meal break compensable</li> <li>Attestation and override processes matter, both for compliance and litigation defense</li> <li>Conditional certification can be defeated at an early stage when plaintiffs fail to present evidence of actual unpaid work</li> </ul> From a defense perspective, <i>Kaiser</i> serves as a reminder that conditional certification is discretionary, not automatic. Courts in the Eighth Circuit continue to require plaintiffs to present evidence tying their claims to a common, FLSA-violating practice. By developing the factual record early and pursuing targeted discovery, employers may avoid the issuance of notice, often the most costly and disruptive stage of an FLSA collective action. For employers facing meal break claims, <i>Kaiser</i> provides a useful roadmap for defeating certification before the case expands.</div>https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10Rebecca Boatright Joins Baker Sterchi in Seattlehttps://www.bakersterchi.com/?t=40&an=145762&format=xml05 Feb 2026Firm News<p>Baker Sterchi Cowden &amp; Rice is pleased to announce that Rebecca &ldquo;Becca&rdquo; Boatright has joined the firm&rsquo;s Seattle office as senior counsel. Boatright brings more than 20 years of government experience, including a decade in executive leadership overseeing systems reform and risk management for a major city police department.</p> <p>Her background includes advising on complex public safety, accountability and operational issues, providing insight into the legal and practical considerations that shape public sector decision-making.</p> Boatright serves as chair of the Legal Officers Section of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and is a founding board member of the National Association of Professional Staff in Public Safety. She earned her law degree and a doctorate in neuroscience from the University of Washington and holds a bachelor&rsquo;s degree from The College of Wooster. She is licensed to practice law in Washington.https://www.bakersterchi.com?t=39&format=xml&directive=0&stylesheet=rss&records=10