Selected Caselaw Passages

The following are selected passages from Missouri appellate court decision on various issues that arise under the Missouri Employment Security Law:

VOLUNTARY LEAVING CASES

BURDEN OF PROOF

"The burden to prove good cause rests on the claimant ...." Contractors Supply Company v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 614 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981).

GOOD CAUSE

"To constitute good cause, the circumstances motivating an employee to voluntarily terminate employment must be real not imaginary, substantial not trifling, and reasonable not whimsical, and good faith is an essential element. The standard as to what constitutes good cause is the standard of reasonableness as applied to the average man or woman, and not to the supersensitive." Belle State Bank v. Industrial Commission, 547 S.W.2d 841, 846, 847 (Mo. App. 1977).

GOOD FAITH

"A worker has good cause to terminate employment voluntarily when that conduct conforms to what an average person, who acts with reasonableness and in good faith, would do." Contractors Supply Company v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 614 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981). "To demonstrate good faith, a claimant must show that before taking the 'drastic' measure of termination of employment, he or she attempted to remedy the situation or dispute." American Family Insurance Company v. Hilden, 936 S.W.2d 207, 210, 211 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996).

DISSATISFACTION WITH WORKING CONDITIONS

"Absent discriminatory or unfair or arbitrary treatment, mere dissatisfaction with working conditions does not constitute good cause for quitting employment unless the dissatisfaction is based upon a substantial change in wages or working conditions from those in force at the time the claimant's employment commenced." Charles v. Missouri Division of Employment Security, 750 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988).

MARITAL OR PARENTAL OBLIGATION

"A worker who leaves his employment under compulsion of marital or parental obligation has left his work without good cause because his reasons for termination lack the causal connection with his employment which is required by the statute." Lyell v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 553 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Mo. App. 1977).

PROFANE LANGUAGE

"A claimant is not required to continue to be subjected to abusive conduct and profane language." Streitz v. Juneau 940 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997).

VERBAL ABUSE

"An employee should not have to endure verbal abuse as a condition of employment, nor should such an employee have to forfeit unemployment compensation benefits upon deciding to sever ties with an employer for that reason." Streitz v. Juneau 940 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997).

HEALTH CONDITION (AGGRAVATION and CAUSATION)

"Work causing an aggravation of an existing condition, or work that was a contributing factor to the illness is also encompassed within the meaning of the clause ' attributable to his work or to his employer,' the only requirement being that there exist a causal connection between the work and the aggravation of, or contribution to, the disability." Bussmann Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Commission , 327 S.W.2d 487, 491 (Mo. App. 1959). "It is settled that where a fact finder must determine medical causation that is not within common knowledge or experience, there must be scientific or medical evidence establishing the cause and effect relationship between the complained-of condition and the asserted cause." Clevenger v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 600 S.W.2d 675 (Mo. App. W.D. 1980).

HEALTH (PERSONAL ILLNESS)

"Personal illness of the employee unrelated to . . . employment will not render termination involuntary unless the illness was caused or aggravated by the work or the employer." Duffy v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 556 S.W.2d 195, 198 (Mo. App. 1977)(citations omitted).

TRANSPORTATION

"In the absence of contract, custom or a collective bargaining agreement imposing an obligation of transportation on the employer, transportation is usually considered a problem of the employee." Woolridge v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 643 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982).

TREATMENT BY EMPLOYER

"The treatment of an employee by his employer or supervisor may be so arbitrary and unacceptable to a person of ordinary reasonable sensitivity as to afford justification for the employee to quit the employment [.]" Smith v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 656 S.W.2d 812, 817 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983).

MISCONDUCT CASES

DEFINITION OF MISCONDUCT

"Misconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation act excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employee, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer." Ritch v. Industrial Commission, 271 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Mo. App. 1954).

BURDEN OF PROOF

"Where an employer claims that an employee was discharged for misconduct, the employer has the burden of proving misconduct by competent and substantial evidence." Business Centers of Missouri, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 743 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988).

ABSENCE FROM WORK

"[A]bsences due to illness or family emergency are absences caused through no fault of Employee and as such cannot be willful misconduct, especially if properly reported to Employer.' Garden View Care Center, Inc., v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 848 S.W.2d 603, 606 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993).

FALSE WORK APPLICATION

"[S]tatements in employment applications must be materially false before a discharge based on falsifications will result in a denial of unemployment benefits. . . . The false statements on the application must be found to be material to the employee's ability to perform properly the duties for which he is employed." Massey v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 740 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987)(emphasis in original).

VIOLATION OF RULE

There is a "vast distinction between the violation of a rule of an employer that would justify the discharge of the employee and a violation of such rule that would warrant a determination of misconduct connected with the employee's employment so as to disqualify him for the statutory unemployment compensation benefits." Laswell v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 534 S.W.2d 613, 617 (Mo. App. 1976).

POOR WORKMANSHIP

"Poor workmanship, lack of judgment or the inability to do the job do not disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits on the basis of misconduct." Powell v. Division of Employment Security, 669 S.W.2d 47, 51 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984).

THREAT AGAINST CO-WORKER

"[M]aking a threat against the life of a co-worker while at the work place in response to the employment situation is misconduct connected with work." Storz v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 723 S.W.2d 72, 73 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986).

SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE

"An isolated act of simple negligence is not, as a matter of law, misconduct connected with work." Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Thomas, 987 S.W.2d 1,4 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998).

AVAILABLE FOR WORK CASES

GENERAL PROVISIONS

"[T]o be eligible a claimant must clearly possess a genuine attachment to the labor market and be able, willing and ready to accept suitable work." Golden v. Industrial Commission, 524 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Mo. App. 1975).

"[A] claimant cannot unduly restrict . . . availability for employment by arbitrarily limiting the character of work, the area within which employment is sought or would be taken, or the wage which would be acceptable." Blackman v. Industrial Commission, 491 S.W.2d 18, 24 (Mo. App. 1973).

STUDENTS

"Ineligible student-claimants are those who limit their availability for work to particular times, days or periods that do not interfere with their primary and principal objective of obtaining a formal education. The reason such students are considered ineligible is that by making themselves available for work only conditionally and on a limited basis at times that do not conflict with their classes and learning purposes, they have divorced themselves actually and currently from the general labor market." Golden v. Industrial Commission, 524 S.W.2d 34, 37 (Mo. App. 1975).

The cases quoted above do not represent an exhaustive compilation of employment security decisions in this State. The quotes are meant only to set out the appellate interpretations on some of the more common issues that come before the Appeals Tribunal.

Note: An Appeal cannot be filed by e-mail.