A federal judge has recused herself from litigation in the Eastern District of Missouri involving a 1% earnings tax that nonresident St. Louis plaintiffs want refunded because they worked from home during the pandemic.
District Judge Catherine D. Perry withdrew from Boles et al v. City of St. Louis because the outcome could potentially impact court employees.
“I have now concluded that I should disqualify myself from this case because there is a chance that its outcome could affect Court employees, including those who report to me,” Judge Perry stated in her April 6 recusal order. “To avoid any potential appearance of impropriety, recusal is appropriate.”
The day before she recused herself, however, Judge Perry presided over a hearing concerning the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would have made claiming a refund easier for nonresident St. Louis workers easier.
Judge Perry ultimately denied the TRO.
“There's something called the taxation injunction act, which basically says that federal courts must leave state tax issues alone but our assertion is that this is not a tax issue,” said W. Bevis Schock, attorney for the plaintiffs. “This is a theft issue.”
According to the March 29 complaint, before the tax year 2020, the city and the city’s revenue collector paid refunds to nonresidents who worked outside the city based on the number of days they worked outside the city.
“Now, Defendants refuse to pay such refunds,” the complaint states. “In doing so, Defendants are brazenly and unlawfully keeping Plaintiffs’ money. This shocks the conscience and violates the Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process. This further violates their 14th Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizures.”
Schock, undeterred by the judge's denial of the TRO, vowed to keep fighting.
“The 14th Amendment prohibits government infringing on a fundamental right, which in this case is property in the form of wages,” Schock told the St. Louis Record. “It’s just a flagrant stealing of money.”
The plaintiffs are three suburban St. Louis residents who named the St. Louis Collector of Revenue Gregory F.X. Daily and the city of St. Louis as defendants in their complaint.
“Our clients applied for their money back and the city changed its websites and said they weren’t paying anybody,” Schock said. “We're not going to protest nothing to apply for. The state remedy is a failure.”