Latest news with #St.Louis-based
Business Journals
a day ago
- Automotive
- Business Journals
Energizer Holdings to invest $450K in auto care products operations
Energizer Holdings, the St. Louis-based manufacturer of batteries and car care products is investing $450,000 in an Ohio auto products facility, building on long-term plans set in motion after a 2019 relocation and round of layoffs.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Agent Commissions Edge Higher in 2025, One Year After Landmark NAR Settlement
In a nationwide survey of 806 real estate agents, the average combined buyer's and seller's agent commission increased from 5.32% to 5.44% in 2025. ST. LOUIS, June 17, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- One year after the National Association of Realtors (NAR) settlement on broker commission practices, the average national total real estate agent commission rate is 5.44% — up from 5.32% last year, according to a new report from Clever Real Estate, a St. Louis-based real estate company. For a home priced at the median value of $367,711, that amounts to $20,003 in total realtor fees — with $10,186 going to the seller's agent (2.77%) and $9,818 to the buyer's agent (2.67%). Although sellers are no longer required to pay the buyer's agent fee as part of the NAR lawsuit changes, many sellers' agents still recommend offering it as a concession. Despite 2024 seeing the lowest average commission across the U.S. in the past 5 years (5.32%), rates now stand closer to the average 2023 rate (5.49%). Still, sellers are paying slightly lower commission rates than they were five years ago (5.5%), and rates can vary significantly, with statewide averages ranging from 4.92% to 6.03%. The states with the highest average total commission rates are: Michigan (6.03%) Ohio (5.87%) Missouri (5.77%) Minnesota (5.75%) Colorado (5.74%) Conversely, the states with the lowest average rates are: New Jersey (4.92%) Maryland (5.13%) Illinois (5.18%) California (5.18%) Alaska (5.22%) In areas with higher home prices, however, agents often charge lower percentage-based commission rates because the overall commission amount is still substantial due to the property's value. In terms of dollars spent on the average commission on a median-priced home, the most expensive states are: Hawaii ($44,282) California ($41,246) Massachusetts ($36,400) Washington ($32,739) Washington, D.C. ($32,274) The least expensive states in terms of dollars spent on commission are: West Virginia ($9,048) Mississippi ($10,263) Louisiana ($11,307) Arkansas ($11,788) Oklahoma ($12,053) From 2024 to 2025, commission rates increased in 39 states, decreased in 10, and stayed the same in New York — with most increases being minimal. The biggest shift may be that sellers now have the option to skip covering the buyer's agent fees, but overall commission rates haven't seen dramatic impacts. Read the full report: About CleverClever Real Estate is a technology company that produces educational real estate content reaching over 10 million readers annually, and its nationwide agent matching service has a 5.0-star Trustpilot rating across 3,500+ customer reviews. Since launching in 2017, Clever has reached $13.1 billion in real estate sold, matched 164,000+ customers with realtors, and saved consumers over $190 million on commission fees. Clever's network spans 17,000 agents across all 50 states. Please contact Nicole Lehman at with any questions or to arrange an interview. CONTACT: Nicole LehmanClever Real Estate396767@ 724-719-0406 View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Clever Real Estate Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Journals
5 days ago
- Business
- Business Journals
Dave Peacock's Advantage Solutions changing up operations roles
Advantage Solutions Inc., a St. Louis-based company that provides outsourced sales and marketing solutions to consumer goods companies and retailers, is changing up duties among its operations executives.
USA Today
6 days ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits The high court unanimously said courts can't use a higher standard to block suits for damages for some disability discrimination claims and not others. But they declined to set the standard. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News WASHINGTON – Disability rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court on June 12 made it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools for damages. Not only did all the justices agree that some courts were using too tough a standard to block lawsuits like one brought by a Minnesota teenager with a rare form of epilepsy, but they also rejected her school's argument that the real issue is the standard is too lax for other types of disability discrimination claims. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line,' Shira Wakschlag, an attorney with The Arc of the United States, said in a statement after the decision. But the court didn't settle the larger issue of what the standard should be in all cases. The justices only said there shouldn't be different standards for discrimination claims involving educational instruction. And two of the court's six conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh – said the school raised 'serious arguments' that courts are getting that standard wrong. In a concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that he hopes 'lower courts will carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution and the underlying statutory text.' Two of the court's three liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – pushed back, saying the school's argument that a person with a disability must prove there was an intent to discriminate is clearly wrong. 'The statutes' text and history, as well as this Court's precedent, foreclose any such purpose requirement,' Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion. More: In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools How the case got to the Supreme Court The issue in the Minnesota case was whether the school failed to accommodate the special needs of Ava Tharpe, whose rare form of epilepsy makes it difficult to attend school in the morning. Federal courts agreed with the family that the school hadn't done enough and needed to provide evening instruction. But the courts said the Tharpes couldn't use the Americans with Disabilities Act to try to get the school to pay for outside teachers and other expenses incurred before they won their case. And they said the Tharpes couldn't use the Rehabilitation Act to seek a court order binding the school to teach Ava after regular school hours. Judges on the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits to go forward involving educational services for children with disabilities. That's a tougher standard than the 'deliberate indifference' rule often used when weighing other types of disability discrimination claims. The school argued that 'deliberate indifference' is too lax. Their lawyers said the plain text of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination. What the Supreme Court decided The Supreme Court said they couldn't consider that argument because they'd only been asked to decide whether the lower courts were correct to apply a 'uniquely stringent' standard for cases like Ava's – not to decide what the standard should be in all cases. 'We will not entertain the (school) District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Thomas said he agreed that it wouldn't have been right for the court to take on the larger issue with its significant ramifications for disability rights. But in his concurring opinion that Kavanaugh joined, Thomas said he'd be willing to do so in an 'appropriate case.' 'Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard under two widely utilized federal statutes is an issue of national importance,' he wrote, 'and the (school) District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect.'
MTV Lebanon
12-06-2025
- Politics
- MTV Lebanon
12 Jun 2025 20:44 PM US Supreme Court bolsters school disability protections
The U.S. Supreme Court sided on Thursday with a severely epileptic girl who is pursuing a disability discrimination lawsuit against a Minnesota public school district in a ruling that bolsters protections for students with disabilities in American schools. The 9-0 ruling threw out a lower court's decision that the Osseo Area Schools district had not discriminated against student Ava Tharpe in violation of two federal disability rights laws, as a lawsuit brought by her parents argued. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the ruling, wrote that the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred by requiring students to satisfy a heightened legal standard for disability discrimination claims against schools than is typically required in other contexts. Federal appeals courts had been divided on whether disability discrimination claims arising in school settings require a heightened legal standard, meaning the stricter requirement had applied in some parts of the country but not others. The Supreme Court ruling harmonizes the standard nationally. Claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that are "based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," Roberts wrote. Roberts added that nothing in the relevant text of those laws suggests that "such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis." Roman Martinez, a lawyer for Tharpe, called the ruling "a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country." "We are grateful to the Supreme Court for its decision holding that these children should enjoy the same rights and protections as all other Americans with disabilities," Martinez said, adding that ruling would "protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all." Tharpe suffers from severe epilepsy that prevents her from attending school before noon due to morning seizures but permits her to engage in school work after that until about 6 p.m. At issue in the case was whether the legal standard applied by the 8th Circuit in rejecting Tharpe's discrimination claims was overly strict, and if a less stringent standard should have applied. When Tharpe and her family lived in Kentucky, her public school district tailored an education plan to her disability that included supplemental evening instruction at home, providing her with the same amount of school time as her peers. In 2015, her family moved to Minnesota, and Tharpe began attending the public schools in the Osseo Area Schools district in the suburbs of Minneapolis. For years, the district refused to accommodate a request by her parents that she receive evening instruction, leading Tharpe to receive fewer hours of education per day compared to her peers, according to court papers. Tharpe and her parents in 2021 filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Osseo district of discrimination under two federal disability laws. The lawsuit sought an accommodation from the district giving the girl the equivalent of a full school day, as well as monetary damages. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis in Minneapolis in 2023 ordered the school district to extend Tharpe's instructional day until 6 p.m. and to provide compensatory hours of instruction. But the judge rejected Tharpe's discrimination claims, ruling that her parents had failed to show that the school district satisfied a heightened legal standard of "bad faith or gross misjudgment." The 8th Circuit upheld the judge's ruling, prompting Tharpe and her parents to appeal her disability discrimination claims to the Supreme Court.
