During a Monday, Aug. 4, hearing, former Jefferson County Circuit Judge Dianna Bartels asked for more time to prepare her case against the Jefferson County Circuit Court and current and former Jefferson County judges and other county and state officials named in a $50.5 million lawsuit she filed earlier this year claiming they discriminated against her and defamed her.
Monday’s hearing before special Judge John Howard Bloodworth at the Jefferson County Courthouse in Hillsboro brought together Bartels, representing herself, and lawyers from the Attorney General’s Office who are representing the Jefferson County Circuit Court and some of the 11 other defendants named in the lawsuit, which was filed Jan. 5.
During the hearing Bartels requested and received more time to address motions filed on behalf of the defendants to dismiss the case. Bartels said she needed the extra time because of eye problems she is experiencing.
Bloodworth set a tentative date of 9 a.m. Sept. 22 to continue the hearing, depending on the availability of a courtroom.
He made no ruling on any of the motions to dismiss the case at the hearing on Monday.
In Bartels’ lawsuit, which she filed in both the Jefferson County and St. Louis County circuit courts, she claims the defendants discriminated against her because she is a woman, has autism and is of Irish descent.
In addition to Jefferson County’s 23rd Circuit Court, defendants named in the suit include Circuit Judge Brenda Stacey; former Circuit Judge Darrell Missey; Circuit Clerk Mike Reuter; Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney Trisha Stefanski; former Jefferson County assistant prosecuting attorney Thomas Hollingsworth; local attorneys Derrick Good, Mark Bishop and Allison Sweeney; former Circuit Clerk employee Alicia Pinson; and Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District Judge Gary M. Gaertner Jr., as well as James Smith, administrator and counselor for the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline, which handles complaints against judges.
Gaertner chairs the commission, which investigated complaints about Bartels during her time as a judge.
Bartels contends in her lawsuit that the commission investigated 13 “charges” against her and “closed” them but forced her to resign from the bench before her term ended following her unsuccessful 2022 bid for reelection to a second term. She resigned Nov. 1, 2022.
Monday’s hearing opened with a discussion about which defendants had been served court papers properly. The matter remained unresolved at the hearing, but during the course of the discussion, Bartels asked Bloodworth to dismiss Jefferson County Circuit Judge Ed Page – one of the defendants she had named when she filed the suit – from the case, and Bloodworth complied.
Missouri Attorney General’s Office assistant attorney general Kelli J. Reichert and intern Lior Sacks appeared at the hearing on behalf of Stacey, Missey, Reuter, Gaertner and Smith. Sacks, who handled most of the presentation, said he would refer to those he was representing as “state defendants.”
Sacks said Bartels’ lawsuit should be dismissed because, among other reasons, she failed to meet filing deadlines and failed to provide any evidence backing her claims. He also said that Bartels’ claims of discrimination lacked merit because no one she targeted in the lawsuit had been her supervisor, but instead colleagues.
Bartels responded that the Attorney General’s Office lawyers were wrong about the deadline date that applied to her suit. In addition, she said her attempts to file her lawsuit electronically through the Missouri Case.net website in December 2024 were unsuccessful because she was “locked out” of the website and could not file until Jan. 5.
She also said the standard for her claims of disability discrimination is that they be “plausible” and that evidence would be brought out during the discovery phase of the trial.
“We’re still early in this,” she said. “I just have to state that I’m autistic.”
Bartels said that Missey and Stacey, who both served as 23rd Circuit Court presiding judges while Bartels was a judge, effectively were her supervisors since they assigned cases to judges in the circuit.
“Presiding judges are supervisors,” she said. “They have ultimate power over you.”
Bartels said she was assigned substantially more cases than other judges during her time on the bench.
Request for more time
Attorneys for other defendants in the lawsuit were at the hearing but did not present their arguments to dismiss the case after Bartels asked Bloodworth for more time to prepare and he agreed to continue the hearing later.
When the judge asked her why she needed more time, Bartels said she has serious eye problems, like “double vision,” and needs to go through 12 days of eye therapy, adding that she needs more time to work on her case.
Bloodworth said he would grant Bartels’ request for more time to treat her eye problems and work on her case, but directed her to seek help preparing her case if she is unable to do it alone by the next hearing date.