Integra Healthcare, Inc. v. Mo. State Bd. of Mediation

• Decision Date: 15 November 2022
• Docket Number: WD 84919
• Parties: INTEGRA HEALTHCARE, INC., d/b/a Integrity Home Care, et al., Respondents, v. MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

655 S.W.3d 604

INTEGRA HEALTHCARE, INC., d/b/a Integrity Home Care, et al., Respondents,

v.MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION, et al., Appellants.

WD 84919

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: November 15, 2022

Harvey M. Tettlebaum and Lowell D. Pearson, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent Integra Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a Integrity Home Care.

Ryan Bertels, Jefferson City, MO, Attorney for Respondents Lezlie Connie Banks and Alice Davis.

Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, Jeremiah J. Morgan, Deputy Attorney General - Civil, and Ryan L. Blansett, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Appellants.

Before Division Four: Gary D. Witt, Chief Judge, Presiding, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge, and Louis Angles, Special Judge

Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge

The Missouri State Board of Mediation, the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Missouri Division of Employment Security, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, the Missouri Quality Home Care Council, the Missouri Home Care Union, Bruce Lynch, James G. Avery, Jane Massman, and Margaret Donnelly (collectively, "the State") appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri ("trial court"), awarding attorney's fees pursuant to section 610.027¹ to Integra Home Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a Integrity Home Care ("Integra"), and to Alice Davis ("Davis") and Lezlie Connie Banks ("Banks"). We affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.

Factual and Procedural Background²

Through the initiative process, Missouri voters adopted the Quality Home Care Act ("the Act") on November 4, 2008. The Act is codified at sections 208.850 to 208.871. The Act created the Missouri Quality Home Care Council ("Council") with the authority to, among other things, "engage in collective bargaining with a representative of personal care attendants, and recommend changes in personal care attendants’ wages and benefits to the general assembly." § 208.853(9). The Act authorized the State Board of Mediation ("Board") to "conduct an election, by mail ballot, to determine whether an organization shall be designated the exclusive bargaining representative." § 208.862.4.

On March 12, 2009, the Missouri Home Care Union ("Union") filed a petition with the Board to request recognition as bargaining representative for personal care attendants. The Board mailed ballots for voting for or against Union representation, together with instructions, to some number of personal care attendants on June 29, 2009. The instructions stated that completed ballots must arrive at the Board by July 21, 2009, and that the ballots would be counted on July 22, 2009. Integra was a vendor in the consumer-directed services program, and many attendants affiliated with Integra were eligible to vote in the union election but did not receive ballots. Likewise, Davis and Banks were personal care attendants in the consumer-directed services program and were eligible to vote in the union election but did not receive ballots.

On July 7, 2009, Integra's counsel sent an open-records request to the Council, addressed to the custodian of records and emailed to the chairman. On July 15, 2009, Integra's counsel sent a follow-up letter to the Council, addressed to the custodian of records and emailed to the chairman, noting that the Council had failed to respond to the July 7, 2009 open-records request by the statutory deadline in section 610.023.3, advising that the Sunshine Law had been violated and that the penalties for Sunshine Law violations contained in section 610.027 included costs and attorney's fees. On July 16, 2009, the chairman responded to the open-records request, stating that "there is none of the information you requested in existence." However, numerous documents responsive to Integra's open-records request did exist at the time of the chairman's response.

On July 21, 2009, Integra and an individual personal care attendant, Ms. Nancy Stretch, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a six-count Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Enforcement of the Missouri Open Records and Meetings Law. On the same day, the trial court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, ordering that the Board, its chairman and executive assistant, the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the State Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, and their employees and agents be temporarily restrained and enjoined from certifying any election results before the Board. In the Petition:

• Count I – Integra and Ms. Stretch sought a declaration that the Board's proposed action to count ballots and to certify the union representation election results was unlawful, illegal, and in violation of section 208.862.4; and temporary and permanent injunctive relief barring certification of the election results;

• Count II – Integra and Ms. Stretch sought a declaration that the Board's proposed action to count ballots and certify union election was unlawful and in violation of sections 536.021 and 295.070; temporary and permanent injunctive relief barring certification of the election results; and reasonable attorney's fees;

• Count III – Ms. Stretch sought a declaration that the threatened certification violated her due process rights; temporary and permanent injunctive relief barring certification of the election results; and her costs and attorney's fees;

• Count IV – Integra and Ms. Stretch sought a declaration that the Council violated article II, section 1 and article IV, section 28 of the Missouri Constitution by expending state funds that were not appropriated; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring the Council from making further expenditures of state funds; and their costs and attorney's fees;

• Count V – Integra and Ms. Stretch sought a declaration that the Council violated the Sunshine Law, sections 610.010 to .029; a finding that all actions taken prior to the date the petition was filed were null and void; and penalties upon a finding that Council's violations of the Sunshine Law were knowing and purposeful;

• Count VI – Integra and Ms. Stretch sought a declaration that Council violated section 536.055, and an order requiring Council to comply with the statute.

Approximately one month after the lawsuit was filed, at the deposition of the chairman of the Council on August 19, 2009, the documents responsive to Integra's Sunshine Law request were produced.

On August 21, 2009, Integra, Ms. Stretch, Ms. Daryll Stone, Banks, and Davis (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed an eight-count First Amended Petition. The allegations and relief sought in Counts I through VI of the First Amended Petition remained substantially the same as in the original petition. Counts VII and VIII were added:

• Count VII – plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Council violated section 208.859 and that the Council's actions in conducting the union election and the election itself were unlawful;

• Count VIII – plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Department of Health and Senior Services and its director violated section 208.856.1; an order compelling them to comply with said statute; and permanent injunctive relief barring them from participating or interfering with any activities of the Council unless specifically permitted by law.

On October 26, 2009, Ms. Stretch and Ms. Stone withdrew as plaintiffs, and Integra, Banks, and Davis moved for summary judgment. On the same day, the State filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, in which the State conceded that a new election was necessary in light of the discovery that approximately 3,450 personal care attendants did not receive notice of the election or a ballot. On December 17, 2009, the trial court entered an Order: (1) finding that a new election was necessary and that the results of the union election that was the subject of the litigation not be certified; (2) granting the State's motion for summary judgment as to Counts I, II, III, IV, VII, and VIII in the First Amended Petition; (3) granting Integra, Banks, and Davis's motion for summary judgment as to Counts V and VI in the First Amended Petition; and (4) dismissing the affirmative defenses raised by the State. Regarding the Sunshine Law violation, the trial court's Order stated:

Missouri Quality Home Care Council and its members violated the Missouri open records and meetings law, Section 610.010, et seq. , RSMo, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will conduct a hearing to make further findings regarding Count V and Section 610.027, RSMo, at a time to be set by the Court.

On March 24, 2010, Integra filed a motion for attorney's fees and expenses, requesting that the trial court find that the Council and its members knowingly and purposefully violated the Sunshine Law and order the Council and its members to pay Integra's attorney's fees and expenses. Likewise, on April 29, 2010, Davis and Banks—represented by the same attorneys who originally represented Ms. Stretch—filed a motion for attorney's fees and expenses, requesting that the trial court find that the Council and its members knowingly and purposefully violated the Sunshine Law and order the Council and its members to pay Davis and Banks's attorney's fees and expenses.

On October 27, 2010, the trial court conducted a hearing to make further findings regarding Count V of the First Amended Petition and section 610.027. The trial court found four specific violations of the Sunshine Law: (1) failure of the Council to appoint a custodian of records; (2) failure of the Council to respond to an open-records request; (3) failure of the Council to produce records subject to an open-records request; and (4) failure of the Council to post a tentative agenda when it posted notice of a meeting. In March 2011, the trial court conducted an additional hearing, subsequently ruling (in 2012) that the Sunshine Law violations were knowing and purposeful. Integra filed an additional motion for attorney's fees...