{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"employment-law","label":"Employment Law","description":null,"totalCases":263,"relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":17},{"year":2019,"count":29},{"year":2020,"count":31},{"year":2021,"count":31},{"year":2022,"count":37},{"year":2023,"count":26},{"year":2024,"count":35},{"year":2025,"count":51},{"year":2026,"count":6}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed113602:2026-02-24","opinionId":"42131c82-98bc-58fc-8c38-ad998c0cdaad","slug":"kathryn-torre-stewart-appellantplaintiff-v-the-washington-university-st-l-113602","caseName":"Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.","caseNumber":"ED113602","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"Kathryn Torre-Stewart appealed the dismissal of her claims against Washington University for disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims, finding Torre-Stewart failed to plead facts demonstrating a legal disability or sufficient harassment. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, concluding that Torre-Stewart adequately pleaded facts to establish its elements, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231417","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kathryn-torre-stewart-appellantplaintiff-v-the-washington-university-st-l-113602","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113623:2026-01-13","opinionId":"0c7856e5-fe4a-527c-9cbb-ec2721a9a0a4","slug":"gamez-v-easyex-mo-ofallon-ed113623","caseName":"Celestina Gamez, Respondent, v. EasyEx MO OFallon, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113623","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"EasyEx MO Ofallon, LLC appealed the circuit court's judgment denying its motion to set aside a default judgment entered against it in a suit brought by its former employee, Celestina Gamez, for violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Workers' Compensation Law. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that EasyEx failed to file its motion to set aside the default judgment within the one-year time limit prescribed by Rule 74.05(d). The court also granted Gamez's motion for attorney's fees on appeal as a prevailing party under the MHRA and remanded the case for a determination of reasonable fees.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gamez-v-easyex-mo-ofallon-ed113623","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113270:2025-12-23","opinionId":"b406b9d9-152b-50a7-a051-75ed7c87c014","slug":"karla-k-allsberry-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-et-al-respondents-113270","caseName":"Karla K. Allsberry, Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113270","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Karla Allsberry, a former circuit clerk, sued Judge Patrick Flynn and his secretary Kathy Hall for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Circuit Court of Lincoln County (CCLC) for sex discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA. The trial court granted summary judgment on defamation, directed verdicts on the MHRA claims, and a jury verdict for Flynn on IIED. The appellate court affirmed all judgments, finding no evidence of actual malice for defamation, that the State of Missouri (not CCLC) was Allsberry's employer for MHRA purposes, and that the jury instruction on IIED's \"sole purpose\" element was a correct statement of law. It also found Allsberry's claims of trial error regarding attorney misconduct were not preserved.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229238","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karla-k-allsberry-appellant-v-patrick-s-flynn-et-al-respondents-113270","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd88066:2025-11-25","opinionId":"9dbfe659-5c0d-5db3-9062-1eadf51d1df5","slug":"victoria-amrine-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-employer-and-div-d88066","caseName":"Victoria Amrine\nvs. \nProgressive Casualty Insurance Company, Employer, and Division of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD88066","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Victoria Amrine appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits, which stemmed from her termination by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company for failing to disclose a criminal charge. The appellate court did not reach the merits of Amrine's claims. Instead, the appeal was dismissed because Amrine's brief failed to substantially comply with Rule 84.04's mandatory briefing requirements, including an incomplete statement of facts, deficient points relied on, and an argument section lacking legal authority and record references. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227759","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/victoria-amrine-v-progressive-casualty-insurance-company-employer-and-div-d88066","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87623:2025-11-25","opinionId":"a6fbf8c5-39bc-5052-b22c-d11532a2ba1c","slug":"connie-haworth-v-guest-services-inc-et-al-d87623","caseName":"Connie Haworth\nvs.\nGuest Services, Inc., et al.","caseNumber":"WD87623","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Connie Haworth, a former employee, sued Guest Services, Inc., St. Anthony's, LLC, and Mark Ledom for various claims. The Appellants moved to compel arbitration, arguing a binding arbitration agreement existed, but the trial court denied their motions, finding a lack of mutual assent. The appellate court affirmed, deferring to the trial court's factual finding that the parties did not mutually assent to the arbitration agreement, and concluding that an adequate evidentiary hearing had been conducted.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227754","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/connie-haworth-v-guest-services-inc-et-al-d87623","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86817:2025-11-04","opinionId":"cff59d62-7a7a-579f-8b51-8dea598a1dd9","slug":"savannah-radmer-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86817","caseName":"Savannah Radmer\nvs. \nMissouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD86817","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Savannah Radmer appealed a judgment awarding her damages and attorney fees from her former employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, on claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. She challenged the reduction of her damages award and the constitutionality of a damages cap. MDOC cross-appealed several issues, including jury instructions and punitive damages. The appellate court dismissed the consolidated appeals, concluding that the circuit court's judgment was not final due to its failure to rule on Radmer's requests for prejudgment interest and equitable relief.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","employment-law","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226934","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/savannah-radmer-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86817","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87809:2025-10-21","opinionId":"25c4476e-3bf7-5dab-8374-06c646ce7dcb","slug":"dana-miller-v-the-missouri-house-of-representatives-et-al-d87809","caseName":"Dana Miller\nvs. \nThe Missouri House of Representatives, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87809","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Dana Miller, a former Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives, appealed the circuit court's dismissal of her whistleblower claim against the House. Miller alleged she was retaliated against by Speaker Dean Plocher after reporting concerns about software procurement, campaign finance violations, and abuse of authority. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Miller failed to allege facts showing Plocher was her \"supervisor or appointing authority\" as required by the whistleblower statute, as the Speaker lacks the authority to discipline or remove the Chief Clerk under House rules.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","administrative-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226555","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dana-miller-v-the-missouri-house-of-representatives-et-al-d87809","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87715:2025-10-14","opinionId":"3f12ea58-056b-5a0f-9822-1f4fd2ce364b","slug":"david-woody-v-patrick-clark-jay-bettis-richard-riddell-d87715","caseName":"David Woody\nvs. \nPatrick Clark, Jay Bettis, & Richard Riddell","caseNumber":"WD87715","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-14","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Woody, an elected County Clerk and member of the Missouri National Guard, sued the County Commission after it limited his salary payment to 120 hours per federal fiscal year during his 400-day active federal military deployment. Woody argued he was entitled to full salary under § 41.942.1, while the Commission relied on § 105.270.1. The circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings for the Commission. The appellate court affirmed, holding that § 41.942.1 preserves a deployed Guard member's compensation rate and terms (\"pay status\"), but not the right to continued salary payment during extended federal deployment.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226094","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-woody-v-patrick-clark-jay-bettis-richard-riddell-d87715","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87399:2025-10-07","opinionId":"6dbbbaaf-99a5-5420-b52e-c58aeba1274c","slug":"hernandez-campbell-v-adecco-usa-inc-d87399","caseName":"Hernandez Campbell\nvs. \nAdecco USA, INC.","caseNumber":"WD87399","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Hernandez Campbell sued Adecco USA, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) related to employment background checks. The trial court granted summary judgment for Adecco on Campbell's disclosure and authorization claims. On appeal, Campbell raised four points, challenging the trial court's reliance on affidavits, the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the provision of a consumer notification, the clarity and conspicuousness of the notification, and the dismissal with prejudice. The Western District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on the affidavits, Campbell's failure to properly support his factual assertions, and the merits-based disposition.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225655","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/hernandez-campbell-v-adecco-usa-inc-d87399","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113329:2025-09-30","opinionId":"dea8e9e5-bee6-524b-a242-c0ec61cdcd6b","slug":"samantha-bordas-appellant-v-fedex-freight-inc-and-division-of-employment-113329","caseName":"Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113329","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Samantha Bordas appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to dismiss her application for unemployment benefits review as untimely. Bordas, who was terminated by FedEx Freight, Inc. due to absences, argued her absences were due to a hostile work environment. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commission's decision that it lacked statutory authority to review the claim because Bordas's application for review was filed two months past the mandatory 30-day deadline.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225356","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/samantha-bordas-appellant-v-fedex-freight-inc-and-division-of-employment-113329","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113002:2025-09-02","opinionId":"27b9b297-2384-5ab9-adad-7e5ee12563c1","slug":"colin-rumpsa-appellant-v-jefferson-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-respo-113002","caseName":"Colin Rumpsa, Appellant, vs. Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113002","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Colin Rumpsa, a former deputy, sued the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and others, alleging violations of the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBOR) during his termination process. The circuit court dismissed his petition, finding his claims were barred by the LEOBOR's one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the limitations period begins when the violation itself is ascertainable, not when the resulting damage or final employment action is sustained.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colin-rumpsa-appellant-v-jefferson-county-sheriffs-department-et-al-respo-113002","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113095:2025-08-26","opinionId":"6d9378b2-9f4b-51ae-985e-8417b3c94274","slug":"rayne-littlefield-appellant-v-norman-rigdon-post-5896-veterans-of-foreign-113095","caseName":"Rayne Littlefield, Appellant, vs. Norman Rigdon Post 5896, Veterans of Foreign Wars of The United States, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113095","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rayne Littlefield sued the Norman Rigdon Post 5896, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The circuit court granted summary judgment for VFW, finding it exempt from the MHRA as a bona fide private membership club. On appeal, Littlefield argued that VFW's public events and advertising negated its exempt status. The appellate court affirmed, holding as a matter of first impression that VFW's public activities do not, by themselves, alter its status as a bona fide private membership club, thus exempting it from MHRA liability.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223936","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rayne-littlefield-appellant-v-norman-rigdon-post-5896-veterans-of-foreign-113095","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113153:2025-08-19","opinionId":"15cee353-dbd4-5c11-bb56-bf8e8bf1829a","slug":"jennifer-kubinak-appellant-v-board-of-regents-southeast-missouri-state-un-113153","caseName":"Jennifer Kubinak, Appellant, v. Board of Regents, Southeast Missouri State University, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113153","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jennifer Kubinak, a 64-year-old woman, appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Southeast Missouri State University on her claims of age discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Kubinak alleged she was paid less than similarly situated male and younger employees and that the University retaliated against her after she filed a discrimination charge. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kubinak failed to present admissible evidence or properly support her denials and additional facts as required by Rule 74.04(c)(2) to create a genuine issue of material fact for any of her claims.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jennifer-kubinak-appellant-v-board-of-regents-southeast-missouri-state-un-113153","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112980:2025-08-19","opinionId":"c9d7c27f-3248-5f9e-a522-b373224367ec","slug":"cassandra-murphy-appellant-v-intensiva-hospital-of-greater-st-louis-inc-d-112980","caseName":"Cassandra Murphy, Appellant, vs. Intensiva Hospital of Greater St. Louis, Inc., D/B/A Select Specialty Hospital, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112980","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-19","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cassandra Murphy appealed the circuit court's judgment dismissing her lawsuit for sex discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act for failure to prosecute. The circuit court had dismissed her case with prejudice after a period of perceived inactivity. The appellate court reversed, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion because Murphy's counsel had taken sufficient actions, including moving to remove the case from the dismissal docket, engaging in preliminary settlement negotiations, and attempting to schedule a deposition, to prevent a finding of substantial delay. The case was remanded with specific instructions to reinstate Murphy's case.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cassandra-murphy-appellant-v-intensiva-hospital-of-greater-st-louis-inc-d-112980","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100999:2025-08-12","opinionId":"0a78b430-7132-59ac-912e-00f4f4cd01e8","slug":"catharine-sue-carter-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-david-ca-100999","caseName":"Catharine Sue Carter, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David Carter (Deceased), Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100999","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Catharine Sue Carter, as personal representative of David Carter's estate, and the Missouri Department of Corrections both appealed the circuit court's judgment following a jury verdict in Carter's favor on discrimination claims. Carter challenged the reduction of damages under a statutory cap, while the Department argued Carter failed to make a submissible case. The Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court's judgment was not final because it failed to rule on Carter's requests for equitable relief and prejudgment interest.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223395","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/catharine-sue-carter-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-david-ca-100999","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100998:2025-08-12","opinionId":"6b9aeae8-7870-5e0f-ab00-8513a02c2ca0","slug":"kevin-rhodes-appellant-respondent-v-missouri-highways-and-transportation-100998","caseName":"Kevin Rhodes, Appellant-Respondent, vs. Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, Respondent-Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100998","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kevin Rhodes, a former employee, and the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission both appealed the circuit court's judgment following a jury verdict in Rhodes's favor on his claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. Rhodes challenged the constitutional validity of a damages cap, while the Commission argued Rhodes failed to make a submissible case. The Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the appeal, holding that the circuit court's judgment was not final because it failed to rule on Rhodes's requests for equitable relief and prejudgment interest.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kevin-rhodes-appellant-respondent-v-missouri-highways-and-transportation-100998","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112865:2025-07-29","opinionId":"973e71fb-ecd7-5d23-8ab2-4d93aa06dcb9","slug":"lucas-e-wilkinson-appellant-v-farmers-holding-companies-dba-capital-sand-112865","caseName":"Lucas E. Wilkinson, Appellant, vs. Farmers Holding Companies, D/B/A Capital Sand, Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112865","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Lucas Wilkinson sued Farmers Holding Companies d/b/a Capital Sand, Inc. for violating Missouri's service letter statute after his employment was terminated. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the employer failed to meet its threshold burden for summary judgment by not properly pleading an affirmative defense as required by Rule 55.08, instead merely asserting facts in its motion.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lucas-e-wilkinson-appellant-v-farmers-holding-companies-dba-capital-sand-112865","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100905:2025-07-22","opinionId":"a16301b6-06c7-50b6-95bc-ddcebf2006af","slug":"in-re-ryan-christopher-mccarty-respondent-100905","caseName":"In re:  Ryan Christopher McCarty, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100905","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"In this original attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel alleged attorney Ryan Christopher McCarty disclosed confidential client information after his termination from the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD), his former client. McCarty argued his disclosures were required or protected by the First Amendment and Missouri's whistleblowing statute. The Missouri Supreme Court found McCarty violated Rules 4-1.9(c)(1) and 4-1.9(c)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rejecting his defenses. The Court suspended McCarty's license to practice law indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for one year.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222373","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-ryan-christopher-mccarty-respondent-100905","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113127:2025-07-15","opinionId":"21754b24-5fdb-5058-8f8e-93205a55853d","slug":"robert-wayne-plaintiffappellant-v-the-washington-university-dba-washingto-113127","caseName":"Robert Wayne, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. The Washington University d/b/a Washington University, Defendant/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113127","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Wayne, a former police officer for Washington University, appealed the dismissal of his petition alleging the University violated his rights under Missouri's Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBOR), section 590.502 RSMo. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the LEOBOR does not apply to private universities. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plain language of the LEOBOR limits its application to public entities, and that Wayne's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222198","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-wayne-plaintiffappellant-v-the-washington-university-dba-washingto-113127","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87676:2025-07-08","opinionId":"30cb0433-291d-5c8f-853c-8e43a96c27eb","slug":"vendtech-sgi-llc-v-david-benham-and-division-of-employment-security-d87676","caseName":"Vendtech-SGI, LLC\nvs.\nDavid Benham and Division of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD87676","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Vendtech-SGI, LLC appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to award David Benham unemployment benefits. Benham was discharged for allegedly conducting an unauthorized investigation and gossiping about a coworker's nude photograph. The Commission found that Vendtech did not meet its burden to prove misconduct, crediting Benham's testimony that he was merely verifying information before reporting it to supervisors and that his job duties were unclear. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding it supported by competent and substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221961","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/vendtech-sgi-llc-v-david-benham-and-division-of-employment-security-d87676","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87521:2025-07-01","opinionId":"b6f38c8d-45f8-5d56-ac9c-be802e7efd5c","slug":"rose-howland-v-truman-medical-center-inc-dba-university-health-lakewood-m-d87521","caseName":"Rose Howland\nvs.\nTruman Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a University Health Lakewood Medical Center","caseNumber":"WD87521","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-01","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rose Howland sued Truman Medical Center, alleging co-workers improperly accessed her patient records, discovered her COVID-19 vaccination status, and subsequently harassed and demoted her, forcing her resignation. The trial court dismissed most claims for lack of standing and a negligence per se claim for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Howland's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, negligence, and negligent training and supervision, concluding she had sufficiently alleged standing. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence per se claim, holding that HIPAA and HITECH do not provide a private right of action. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","employment-law","negligence","contracts","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221675","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rose-howland-v-truman-medical-center-inc-dba-university-health-lakewood-m-d87521","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87209:2025-06-03","opinionId":"aa76a445-23dd-5d7b-91e5-5d00c93cef70","slug":"savana-atkisson-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d87209","caseName":"Savana Atkisson vs. Missouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD87209","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Savana Atkisson, a female corrections officer, sued the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) for sex discrimination and hostile work environment under the MHRA, alleging that a new gender announcement policy enabled offender sexual harassment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the DOC on both claims. On appeal, Atkisson challenged only the hostile work environment claim. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Atkisson failed to challenge an independent basis for the trial court's decision, specifically the finding that the DOC took appropriate remedial action in response to the alleged harassment.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221081","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/savana-atkisson-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d87209","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38656:2025-05-28","opinionId":"de62c3ff-1f11-59bf-9a5e-8a575687b6a6","slug":"james-sanchez-in-his-capacity-as-president-of-international-brotherhood-o-d38656","caseName":"JAMES SANCHEZ, in his capacity as President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, KEITH ATCHISON, in his capacity as Vice-President of INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 702, and QUINTON TILLMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nCITY OF POPLAR BLUFF, MISSOURI, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38656","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Plaintiffs, members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 702, sued the City of Poplar Bluff for breach of a collective bargaining agreement. They claimed the City breached the agreement by not hiring Union member Quinton Tillman for a Water Plant Operator position, instead hiring Daniel Sparks. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Sparks was an employee covered by the agreement and thus Tillman was not the only eligible internal applicant, negating the claim for job preference.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-sanchez-in-his-capacity-as-president-of-international-brotherhood-o-d38656","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112938:2025-05-06","opinionId":"a8e914ac-7aa4-5751-a6a8-b0a2d8ac31fb","slug":"cedric-a-jackson-respondent-v-true-manufacturing-co-appellant-and-divisio-112938","caseName":"Cedric A. Jackson, Respondent, vs. True Manufacturing Co., Appellant, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112938","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"True Manufacturing Co. appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which found Cedric A. Jackson was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's determination that Jackson was not discharged for misconduct. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Commission erred by ruling the employer's hearsay evidence was incompetent despite no timely objection, thereby denying the employer a fair hearing and acting in excess of its powers.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220340","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cedric-a-jackson-respondent-v-true-manufacturing-co-appellant-and-divisio-112938","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86862:2025-04-29","opinionId":"147a00f6-ec3e-51bb-8a15-afadbdf970ce","slug":"pedro-carrillo-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86862","caseName":"Pedro Carrillo \nvs. \nMissouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD86862","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Pedro Carrillo sued the Missouri Department of Corrections for disability discrimination and hostile work environment under the Missouri Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Carrillo on both claims, awarding a single sum for compensatory damages. The DOC appealed, challenging only the disability discrimination claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that because the DOC did not challenge the hostile work environment claim, the single damage award remained supported regardless of any error in the disability discrimination claim. The court also remanded the case for the trial court to determine appellate attorney fees, expenses, and post-judgment interest for Carrillo.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/pedro-carrillo-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86862","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112703:2025-02-25","opinionId":"10da62c8-b24c-5c25-abc1-7501d6cfd53a","slug":"leon-thomas-jr-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-112703","caseName":"Leon Thomas, Jr., Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112703","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Leon Thomas, Jr. appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which found he was overpaid unemployment benefits and ordered repayment because he failed to report vacation pay. On appeal, Thomas argued that the uncashed vacation pay check did not qualify as income, an argument the court noted was not raised below. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that \"wages\" for unemployment purposes include amounts \"payable\" for personal services, such as vacation pay, regardless of whether the claimant cashed the check.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217798","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/leon-thomas-jr-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-112703","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112408:2025-02-11","opinionId":"a5390351-818b-53d1-95b7-ae5ffb2ca9a2","slug":"mike-abduhamed-appellantcross-respondent-v-carol-house-furniture-inc-resp-112408","caseName":"Mike Abduhamed, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. Carol House Furniture, Inc., Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112408","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-11","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mike Abuhamdeh, a former sales representative, appealed the trial court's judgment regarding unpaid sales commissions from Carol House Furniture, Inc. Abuhamdeh argued the trial court erred by not imposing a mandatory statutory penalty under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) for untimely commission payments. Carol House cross-appealed, asserting its compensation plan did not conflict with the MMPA regarding post-termination commissions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Agreement conflicted with the MMPA, but reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to apply the statutory penalty for untimely payment of commissions.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217394","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mike-abduhamed-appellantcross-respondent-v-carol-house-furniture-inc-resp-112408","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38584:2025-01-31","opinionId":"00475bbd-03de-5dc3-8e67-b9e499605f40","slug":"valhalla-restaurants-llc-dba-mcdonalds-employer-appellant-v-kiara-page-cl-d38584","caseName":"VALHALLA RESTAURANTS, LLC d/b/a MCDONALD'S, Employer-Appellant\nvs.\nKIARA PAGE, Claimant-Respondent and DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38584","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-31","year":2025,"display_summary":"Valhalla Restaurants, LLC d/b/a McDonald's appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which affirmed an award of unemployment benefits to former employee Kiara Page. The Commission found Page was not disqualified for misconduct, specifically rejecting claims of insubordination and an inappropriate relationship. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission erred by failing to consider uncontroverted evidence of Page's chronic tardiness and absenteeism, which constituted misconduct under state law.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/valhalla-restaurants-llc-dba-mcdonalds-employer-appellant-v-kiara-page-cl-d38584","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112664:2025-01-21","opinionId":"4ffc330b-31c2-593f-9d24-43ac76f89879","slug":"patrick-carron-appellant-v-mark-schabbing-darryl-green-respondents-112664","caseName":"Patrick Carron, Appellant, v. Mark Schabbing & Darryl Green, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112664","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Appellant Patrick Carron sued Mark Schabbing and Darryl Green for tortious interference with a contract and business expectancy after his employment with Perry County Memorial Hospital was terminated. The trial court granted summary judgment for Schabbing and Green, finding they were released by a General Release and Waiver Carron signed as part of his separation agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Respondents were members of a \"related company\" to the Hospital, the Perryville Family Care Clinic, and thus were included in the scope of the release.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216876","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patrick-carron-appellant-v-mark-schabbing-darryl-green-respondents-112664","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-216874","opinionId":"9a3ba590-3188-50f5-8525-fc7121d52627","slug":"iria-hapsari-h-kline-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-responde-112419","caseName":"Iria Hapsari H. Kline, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112419","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-01-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Iria Hapsari H. Kline appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decisions upholding the Division of Employment Security's finding that she was overpaid state and federal unemployment benefits. Kline argued she was improperly deprived of representation because her attorney did not receive the requisite notice of the hearing. The appellate court reversed the Commission's decisions, finding that the record lacked sufficient competent evidence to show that the Division had notified Kline's counsel of the hearing, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216874","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/iria-hapsari-h-kline-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-responde-112419","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112158:2024-12-24","opinionId":"1a676826-421d-54a2-b910-355bea580efa","slug":"dr-shereen-kader-appellant-v-harris-stowe-state-university-and-board-of-r-112158","caseName":"Dr. Shereen Kader, Appellant, vs. Harris Stowe State University, and Board of Regents of Harris Stowe State College, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112158","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-12-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dr. Shereen Kader appealed a jury verdict in favor of Harris-Stowe State University on her claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). Dr. Kader raised two points on appeal, challenging the admission of an email as hearsay and the relevance of witness testimony regarding emotional response to the lawsuit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Dr. Kader failed to adequately develop her arguments on appeal, thus not demonstrating reversible error.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215955","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dr-shereen-kader-appellant-v-harris-stowe-state-university-and-board-of-r-112158","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112318:2024-10-22","opinionId":"80325c66-b9f1-5557-bbb3-53f0c7f30188","slug":"danielle-deloatch-appellant-v-st-louis-public-schools-respondent-112318","caseName":"Danielle DeLoatch, Appellant, vs. St. Louis Public Schools, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112318","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Danielle Deloatch appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to vacate and for leave to amend her petition against St. Louis Public Schools, which alleged race and age discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The trial court had previously dismissed her petition without prejudice. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Deloatch failed to preserve her argument regarding Rule 55.22(a) for appeal. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend, despite the effective prejudice of the dismissal due to the MHRA statute of limitations.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213836","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/danielle-deloatch-appellant-v-st-louis-public-schools-respondent-112318","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112312:2024-10-22","opinionId":"d09847ef-9f2e-5e3b-a240-839f416d5c57","slug":"robert-horton-appellant-v-st-louis-public-schools-respondent-112312","caseName":"Robert Horton, Appellant, vs. St. Louis Public Schools, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112312","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-22","year":2024,"display_summary":"Robert Horton, an African-American male over forty, sued St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) for race and age discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA) after his termination. The trial court dismissed his petition without prejudice, and subsequently denied his motion to vacate that order and for leave to amend his petition. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Horton failed to preserve his argument regarding Rule 55.22(a) for appeal and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, despite the effective prejudice due to the MHRA statute of limitations.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213835","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robert-horton-appellant-v-st-louis-public-schools-respondent-112312","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38072:2024-09-30","opinionId":"47616f11-ee95-55c5-9293-3d472a9be7f7","slug":"annie-williams-plaintiff-appellant-v-hutcheson-enterprises-inc-and-title-d38072","caseName":"ANNIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant \nv.\nHUTCHESON ENTERPRISES, INC. and TITLE CASH OF MISSOURI, INC., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38072","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Plaintiff Annie Williams sued Hutcheson Enterprises, Inc. and Title Cash of Missouri, Inc., alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA. The trial court granted summary judgment for Hutcheson, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Williams' employment by Hutcheson. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Williams was employed by Title Cash, not Hutcheson, and her joint employer theory was not properly pleaded and relied on an outdated statutory definition.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/annie-williams-plaintiff-appellant-v-hutcheson-enterprises-inc-and-title-d38072","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112394:2024-09-24","opinionId":"490b23d3-6efa-5ab1-bdd3-8af65346ce67","slug":"royce-jones-appellant-v-simploy-inc-and-division-of-employment-security-r-112394","caseName":"Royce Jones, Appellant, vs. Simploy, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112394","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-24","year":2024,"display_summary":"Royce Jones appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment compensation, finding she was discharged for misconduct related to her employer's attendance policies. Jones argued that her employer interfered with her FMLA rights and that her absences were excused. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding that Jones failed to provide the required FMLA documentation and that her unexcused absences constituted misconduct connected with work.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211940","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/royce-jones-appellant-v-simploy-inc-and-division-of-employment-security-r-112394","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38367:2024-09-10","opinionId":"66d71cc4-9207-5d79-ab49-5cc8cb2b007d","slug":"matthew-misselhorn-claimant-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-r-d38367","caseName":"MATTHEW MISSELHORN, Claimant-Appellant\nv.\nDIVISION of EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent-Respondent\nand\nAEROFIL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Employer","caseNumber":"SD38367","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-09-10","year":2024,"display_summary":"Matthew Misselhorn appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to deny him unemployment benefits, which found he engaged in misconduct by refusing a mandatory drug test. Misselhorn argued there was insufficient evidence that he refused the test or that the employer's policy defined refusal as a terminable offense. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's ruling, finding competent and substantial evidence supported both the existence of the policy and Misselhorn's refusal to take the drug test.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211313","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-misselhorn-claimant-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-r-d38367","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86357:2024-08-20","opinionId":"bc995c09-11d1-5f89-927e-75358c9c02bb","slug":"bryant-holmes-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86357","caseName":"Bryant Holmes\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD86357","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-08-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Bryant Holmes sued the Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) alleging a hostile work environment under the Missouri Human Rights Act. A jury found in favor of Holmes, and the circuit court denied DOC's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). On appeal, the DOC contended Holmes failed to present substantial evidence for two elements of his claim. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusion that Holmes was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on his sex and that the conduct was severe or pervasive. The case was remanded for a determination of attorney's fees on appeal.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210413","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bryant-holmes-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86357","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38287:2024-08-13","opinionId":"8944aa79-e67f-55a6-8793-0f925832bbc7","slug":"john-lackey-plaintiff-appellant-v-phelps-county-regional-medical-center-d-d38287","caseName":"JOHN LACKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nPHELPS COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a PHELPS HEALTH, Defendant-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38287","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-13","year":2024,"display_summary":"John Lackey sued Phelps County Regional Medical Center for disability discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act after his position was eliminated and he was not hired for a replacement role. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Medical Center, finding Lackey failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was \"disabled\" as defined by the MHRA. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Lackey did not provide evidence that the Medical Center knew of his claimed disability at the time of the adverse employment decision.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210353","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-lackey-plaintiff-appellant-v-phelps-county-regional-medical-center-d-d38287","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112259:2024-06-25","opinionId":"0d8ce11e-ef1b-5f57-bd5e-c3d8ec913b8f","slug":"anne-marie-campbell-et-al-appellants-v-baxter-international-inc-et-al-res-112259","caseName":"Anne Marie Campbell, et al., Appellants, vs. Baxter International, Inc., et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112259","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-25","year":2024,"display_summary":"Anne Marie Campbell and other plaintiffs appealed the trial court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of Baxter International, Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Plaintiffs had sued the defendants for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision related to an employee's tortious and criminal acts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the motion for judgment on the pleadings was timely and properly considered without converting it to a summary judgment motion. The court further concluded that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead proximate cause, as the alleged injuries were too far removed from the defendants' claimed negligence, particularly given the employee's acts were outside the scope of employment.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","negligence","civil-procedure","summary-judgment"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209179","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anne-marie-campbell-et-al-appellants-v-baxter-international-inc-et-al-res-112259","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111924:2024-06-18","opinionId":"a506e6a1-d2da-5d76-89e0-5c41f6634990","slug":"jeanette-layton-appellant-v-mercy-hospital-east-communities-et-al-respond-111924","caseName":"Jeanette Layton, Appellant, vs. Mercy Hospital East Communities, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111924","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-18","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jeanette Layton sued Mercy Hospital East Communities and other entities, alleging age discrimination in employment under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The circuit court granted summary judgment for the employers, finding them exempt from MHRA liability as corporations \"owned or operated\" by a religious organization. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employers were indeed operated by a religious organization as a matter of undisputed fact, and that the employers complied with Supreme Court Rule 74.04 regarding summary judgment procedures.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","administrative-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209053","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeanette-layton-appellant-v-mercy-hospital-east-communities-et-al-respond-111924","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111989:2024-06-11","opinionId":"76f3be14-38ca-58e3-9d6d-c83099b56dba","slug":"christine-m-kohlberg-respondent-v-big-bend-orthodontics-llc-appellant-and-111989","caseName":"Christine M. Kohlberg, Respondent, vs. Big Bend Orthodontics, LLC, Appellant, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111989","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Big Bend Orthodontics, LLC (Employer) appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to award unemployment benefits to Christine M. Kohlberg. The Employer argued the Commission erred by not granting a rehearing, claiming good cause for failing to appear at the Appeals Tribunal hearing because its counsel did not receive notice. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the Division of Employment Security provided proper notice to the Employer, and the Employer's failure to act on that notice did not constitute good cause for its non-appearance.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208898","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christine-m-kohlberg-respondent-v-big-bend-orthodontics-llc-appellant-and-111989","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86435:2024-06-11","opinionId":"7734f5a5-c563-5ad6-af54-e676047c11a0","slug":"michael-eivins-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86435","caseName":"Michael Eivins\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD86435","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Eivins sued the Missouri Department of Corrections for age discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the MHRA. After a prior appeal reversed a summary judgment for the DOC, Eivins sought a judicial determination that certain facts were admitted by the DOC for trial purposes, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Eivins argued the trial court erred by ignoring the law of the case and denying him equal protection. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the reversal of summary judgment nullified any prior admissions for trial purposes and that Eivins was not treated differently than the DOC.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","summary-judgment","employment-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208856","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-eivins-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d86435","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-208853","opinionId":"29681634-6aea-531a-a50e-b3640df1962a","slug":"joshua-m-krasovec-v-kc-board-of-police-comm-et-al-police-retirement-syste-d85910","caseName":"Joshua M. Krasovec\nvs.\nKC Board of Police Comm., Et al., Police Retirement System of Kansas City","caseNumber":"WD85910","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-06-11","year":2024,"display_summary":"Joshua Krasovec appealed the circuit court's judgment concerning his disability retirement from the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department. The circuit court found the KC Board of Police Commissioners and the Police Retirement System of Kansas City unlawfully retired Krasovec without proper medical board certification. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's finding that the retirement was unlawful but modified the judgment to remand the case to the Respondents to conduct the disability evaluation process lawfully, as the circuit court had erred by failing to provide a remedy.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joshua-m-krasovec-v-kc-board-of-police-comm-et-al-police-retirement-syste-d85910","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111923:2024-05-28","opinionId":"932bd214-3d7a-54d6-92c4-d3fd102b7bbb","slug":"scott-caldwell-appellant-v-unifirst-corporation-and-michael-dean-seever-i-111923","caseName":"Scott Caldwell, Appellant, vs. Unifirst Corporation and Michael Dean Seever II, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111923","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-05-28","year":2024,"display_summary":"Scott Caldwell sued UniFirst Corporation and Michael Dean Seever II, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the MHRA, and retaliation under the Workers' Compensation Law, after he was terminated following a back injury. A jury found in Caldwell's favor on all claims, but the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for the defendants. The appellate court reversed the JNOV on the MHRA claims, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts, but affirmed the JNOV on the workers' compensation retaliation claim due to a lack of causal evidence. The case was remanded for reinstatement of the MHRA verdicts and a determination of attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208477","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/scott-caldwell-appellant-v-unifirst-corporation-and-michael-dean-seever-i-111923","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111971:2024-04-30","opinionId":"8088364f-d6c2-5542-861b-9748625345bf","slug":"john-blase-appellant-v-pricewaterhousecoopers-llp-and-division-of-employm-111971","caseName":"John Blase, Appellant v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111971","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"John Blase appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision disqualifying him from unemployment benefits after he voluntarily resigned from PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC. Blase argued he was constructively discharged, lacked good cause to leave, and was denied due process during the administrative hearing. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Blase left without good cause and that his due process rights were not violated.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207657","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-blase-appellant-v-pricewaterhousecoopers-llp-and-division-of-employm-111971","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111748:2024-04-23","opinionId":"0974e38a-a70b-5bde-85ac-5ceae4582b99","slug":"susan-hays-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-department-of-corrections-appel-111748","caseName":"Susan Hays, Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, Department of Corrections, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111748","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Susan Hays prevailed on a Missouri Human Rights Act claim against the State of Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC), and the trial court applied a 1.5 multiplier to her attorneys' fees. DOC appealed, arguing that sovereign immunity barred the use of a multiplier. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that DOC failed to preserve its sovereign immunity argument at the trial level and that sovereign immunity in this context is not a jurisdictional issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal. The court remanded the case for the trial court to determine and award Hays reasonable appellate attorneys' fees.","primaryTopic":"governmental-immunity","topicSlugs":["governmental-immunity","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207502","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/susan-hays-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-department-of-corrections-appel-111748","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86589:2024-04-09","opinionId":"23de0dc5-e833-5ed8-8fa6-3373a3945523","slug":"jefferson-city-medical-group-pc-v-david-brummett-d86589","caseName":"Jefferson City Medical Group, P.C.\nvs.\nDavid Brummett","caseNumber":"WD86589","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-04-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"David Brummett appealed a judgment enforcing a noncompete clause in his employment agreement with Jefferson City Medical Group, P.C. (JCMG), and awarding JCMG attorney's fees. Brummett contended the noncompete clause lacked a legitimate protectable interest, that JCMG materially breached the agreement, and that attorney's fees were improperly awarded. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding the noncompete clause enforceable and the attorney's fees properly awarded. The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine the amount of attorney's fees for the current appeal.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jefferson-city-medical-group-pc-v-david-brummett-d86589","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85927:2024-04-09","opinionId":"25b6956a-9ac6-5734-9f63-a1e7d7da0cf2","slug":"dawn-warren-cook-v-missouri-department-of-public-safety-ernie-rhodes-and-d85927","caseName":"Dawn Warren-Cook \nvs.\nMissouri Department of Public Safety, Ernie Rhodes and Todd Farley","caseNumber":"WD85927","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-04-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Dawn Warren-Cook sued her former employers, Ernie Rhodes and Todd Farley, alleging whistleblower violations under section 105.055. A jury found in her favor, and the trial court awarded compensatory damages and attorney's fees, applying a 1.5 multiplier to the lodestar amount. Rhodes and Farley appealed, challenging only the application of the multiplier. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the multiplier, dismissed the Missouri Department of Public Safety as a party, and remanded the case for the sole purpose of determining Warren-Cook's reasonable attorney's fees and costs on appeal.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207078","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dawn-warren-cook-v-missouri-department-of-public-safety-ernie-rhodes-and-d85927","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85933:2024-04-02","opinionId":"8449abec-2966-5885-8b1e-cb99c26198bb","slug":"beatrice-young-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d85933","caseName":"Beatrice Young\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Corrections","caseNumber":"WD85933","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2024-04-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Beatrice Young sued her former employer, the Missouri Department of Corrections, alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. A jury found in her favor on harassment claims (pre- and post-August 28, 2017) and a retaliation claim, awarding damages and attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Young's pre-August 28, 2017 gender-based harassment claim, concluding the alleged conduct was not objectively severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. As a result, the attorney's fee award was also reversed and remanded for reconsideration.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206854","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/beatrice-young-v-missouri-department-of-corrections-d85933","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111479:2024-03-26","opinionId":"bafb54a2-f603-578c-934d-fe757e102621","slug":"stacey-l-boyd-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-111479","caseName":"Stacey L. Boyd, Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111479","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-26","year":2024,"display_summary":"Stacey L. Boyd appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decisions, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's dismissal of her unemployment overpayment appeals as untimely. The Commission found Boyd did not file her appeals within 30 days of the Division of Employment Security mailing the overpayment determinations. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission's decisions were not supported by sufficient competent evidence because the record lacked proof that the Division actually mailed the overpayment determinations via email on the stated date. The case was remanded for the Appeals Tribunal to decide the appeals on the merits.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stacey-l-boyd-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondent-111479","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111969:2024-03-12","opinionId":"169b5a46-c6e8-5d6a-8634-8323465c9dfc","slug":"shannon-noonan-appellant-v-troyeco-llc-and-division-of-employment-securit-111969","caseName":"Shannon Noonan, Appellant, vs. Troyeco, LLC, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111969","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-12","year":2024,"display_summary":"Shannon Noonan appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits claim. Noonan, a part-time frozen yogurt shop employee, did not return to work after spring break in March 2020 due to a COVID-19 stay-at-home order, despite the employer remaining open and her maintaining an apartment in Springfield. The Commission found she voluntarily quit without good cause attributable to her employer. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that her decision to not return to work was not good cause attributable to the employer, as work was available and she had the option to return.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206347","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shannon-noonan-appellant-v-troyeco-llc-and-division-of-employment-securit-111969","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111832:2024-02-20","opinionId":"c44f252c-17ce-57f6-b7ad-67da488f6beb","slug":"elisa-garland-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondents-111832","caseName":"Elisa Garland, Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111832","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-02-20","year":2024,"display_summary":"Elisa Garland appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits. The Commission found that Garland voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause attributable to her work or employer. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding that its findings were supported by competent and substantial evidence and that Garland failed to prove good cause for leaving her employment.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205679","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/elisa-garland-appellant-v-division-of-employment-security-respondents-111832","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100116:2024-01-30","opinionId":"1ca68933-bd08-5474-86ff-9e1696ff02dd","slug":"emanuel-matthews-et-al-appellants-v-harley-davidson-et-al-respondents-100116","caseName":"Emanuel Matthews, et al., Appellants, vs. Harley Davidson, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"SC100116","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2024-01-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants, former employees of Harley-Davidson and Syncreon, sued their employers alleging hostile work environment and aiding and abetting racial discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The circuit court dismissed their claims for failure to state a claim. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's judgment, holding that the Appellants sufficiently pleaded facts to establish claims for both hostile work environment and aiding and abetting racial discrimination. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/emanuel-matthews-et-al-appellants-v-harley-davidson-et-al-respondents-100116","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111609:2023-12-05","opinionId":"0b831efa-3922-52b8-b8f6-46b393cc67a1","slug":"liana-valle-respondent-v-the-shack-restaurant-group-llc-dba-the-shack-app-111609","caseName":"Liana Valle, Respondent, vs. The Shack Restaurant Group, LLC d/b/a The Shack, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111609","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-05","year":2023,"display_summary":"Liana Valle sued The Shack Restaurant Group for sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge. The Shack moved to dismiss and compel arbitration, arguing Valle had signed an arbitration agreement with a delegation provision. The circuit court denied the motion without explanation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the arbitration agreement contained a valid delegation provision, supported by mutual promises, which granted the arbitrator exclusive authority to decide threshold issues of arbitrability, including challenges to consideration for the entire agreement.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","employment-law","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203215","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/liana-valle-respondent-v-the-shack-restaurant-group-llc-dba-the-shack-app-111609","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86174:2023-11-28","opinionId":"03b669bb-849e-5ca2-9fb4-a1f655ceac7a","slug":"professional-fire-fighters-of-eastern-missouri-international-association-d86174","caseName":"Professional Fire Fighters of Eastern Missouri, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665\nvs.\nCity of Richmond Heights","caseNumber":"WD86174","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-11-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"The Professional Fire Fighters of Eastern Missouri, Local 2665, appealed the circuit court's judgment affirming the State Board of Mediation's dismissal of its petition. The Local sought to create a bargaining unit for fire captains, who were explicitly excluded from an existing Memorandum of Understanding, but the Board dismissed the petition based on the \"contract bar rule.\" The appellate court reversed, holding that the Board's application of the contract bar rule was arbitrary and unreasonable because the petition sought a separate unit for excluded employees, not to add them to an existing one, while also affirming the trial court's classification of the case as a contested case.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/professional-fire-fighters-of-eastern-missouri-international-association-d86174","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111313:2023-11-14","opinionId":"41cf4e28-ce9f-561d-8c58-430150105af8","slug":"charles-roberts-appellant-v-the-reserve-at-heritage-llc-jeffrey-feldman-a-111313","caseName":"Charles Roberts, Appellant, vs. The Reserve at Heritage, LLC, Jeffrey Feldman, and Craig Berger, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111313","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-11-14","year":2023,"display_summary":"Charles Roberts, a maintenance worker, sued his employer for violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law and breach of contract. The parties orally settled the case, and Roberts received $3,000, but he did not dismiss his lawsuit, and his attorney was unaware of the settlement. The trial court later enforced the settlement agreement and denied Roberts' motion to convert an interlocutory default order into a final default judgment. On appeal, the Eastern District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that none of the appealed orders or the parties' dismissals constituted a final, appealable judgment under Missouri law.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202735","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charles-roberts-appellant-v-the-reserve-at-heritage-llc-jeffrey-feldman-a-111313","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99961:2023-11-07","opinionId":"6e6d9675-1901-51b2-85c4-8b2cd5f51f16","slug":"hampton-s-brown-et-al-respondent-v-gojet-airlines-llc-appellant-c99961","caseName":"Hampton S. Brown, et al., Respondent, vs. GoJet Airlines, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC99961","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-11-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"GoJet Airlines appealed the circuit court's judgment overruling its motion to compel arbitration in a breach of contract action filed by Hampton Brown. Brown, a former pilot, alleged GoJet breached a bonus agreement. The Supreme Court of Missouri vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the case to compel arbitration. The Court held that the parties' agreement was governed by the Missouri Uniform Arbitration Agreement and that Brown failed to challenge the delegation provision, which required threshold issues to be resolved by an arbitrator.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","other","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202595","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/hampton-s-brown-et-al-respondent-v-gojet-airlines-llc-appellant-c99961","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85492:2023-10-24","opinionId":"8f78ee5d-5157-5527-abe2-d6336279e047","slug":"wilford-freestone-v-board-of-police-commissioners-kansas-city-missouri-et-d85492","caseName":"Wilford Freestone \nvs.\nBoard of Police Commissioners Kansas City, Missouri, Et Al","caseNumber":"WD85492","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-10-24","year":2023,"display_summary":"Wilford Freestone appealed the trial court's judgment affirming the Board of Police Commissioners' decision to deny him duty-related disability retirement, instead granting non-duty disability retirement. Freestone, a former police officer diagnosed with PTSD and depression, argued the trial court misapplied the law in interpreting Section 86.1180.1. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the statute requires only an occupational disease to arise exclusively from employment, not that the inability to perform duties be exclusively caused by the disease, and found the trial court misapplied the law.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202238","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/wilford-freestone-v-board-of-police-commissioners-kansas-city-missouri-et-d85492","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110609:2023-09-26","opinionId":"df212842-e6b9-518b-8a57-1a87b8b614fe","slug":"samantha-kelley-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-department-of-corrections-110609","caseName":"Samantha Kelley, Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, Department of Corrections, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110609","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"Samantha Kelley sued the Missouri Department of Corrections for sexual harassment under the MHRA, alleging a hostile work environment and the Department's failure to take remedial action. A jury awarded Kelley actual and punitive damages, and the trial court added attorneys' fees with a 1.5 multiplier. The Department appealed, challenging the submissibility of the case, the punitive damages award, and the fee multiplier. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in its entirety, finding no error in the trial court's rulings, and remanded the case for a determination of appellate attorneys' fees.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201476","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/samantha-kelley-respondent-v-state-of-missouri-department-of-corrections-110609","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85602:2023-09-12","opinionId":"148ad3d6-b1fa-5885-bab8-465aa1a1d53a","slug":"city-of-kansas-city-missouri-v-occupational-health-centers-of-the-southwe-d85602","caseName":"City of Kansas City, Missouri\nvs.\nOccupational Health Centers of the Southwest, P.C., d/b/a Concentra Medical Centers","caseNumber":"WD85602","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-09-12","year":2023,"display_summary":"The City of Kansas City sought contractual indemnity from Concentra Medical Centers for costs incurred in an employment discrimination lawsuit against the City. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Concentra, finding that the contractual indemnity provisions, as modified by Concentra's proposal and an additional insured endorsement, did not obligate Concentra to indemnify the City for liability arising from the City's own actions. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the City's liability in the underlying discrimination case stemmed solely from its own conduct, not from Concentra's actions.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","insurance","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-kansas-city-missouri-v-occupational-health-centers-of-the-southwe-d85602","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111086:2023-09-05","opinionId":"ec433840-460e-5823-ad51-54bb1bbd08a6","slug":"zachariah-foltz-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-respondents-111086","caseName":"Zachariah Foltz, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, et al, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED111086","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-05","year":2023,"display_summary":"Officer Zachariah Foltz appealed the circuit court's judgment affirming his termination from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. He argued he was denied due process and his Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The appellate court found that while due process was afforded, the Department improperly forced Officer Foltz to choose between his employment and his Fifth Amendment rights by ordering him to make a statement to a criminal investigator without immunity. The court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case for the Civil Service Commission to reconsider the appropriate sanction based on the remaining lawful grounds for termination.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","civil-procedure","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200755","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/zachariah-foltz-appellant-v-city-of-st-louis-et-al-respondents-111086","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37420:2023-08-17","opinionId":"397e853f-5c9f-562f-89ab-050c13fa03ac","slug":"asia-ashby-plaintiff-appellant-v-woodridge-of-missouri-inc-et-al-defendan-d37420","caseName":"ASIA ASHBY, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nWOODRIDGE OF MISSOURI, INC., et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37420","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-17","year":2023,"display_summary":"Asia Ashby appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Piney Ridge, on her disability discrimination and workers' compensation retaliation claims. Ashby alleged discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act and retaliation under the Workers' Compensation Law after she was terminated for violating the company's drug-free workplace policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Ashby failed to establish a prima facie case for either claim and that the policy was not discriminatory as a matter of law.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","workers-compensation","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/asia-ashby-plaintiff-appellant-v-woodridge-of-missouri-inc-et-al-defendan-d37420","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85582:2023-05-30","opinionId":"907eb5ff-5f28-5780-8e3e-95a68d5e413e","slug":"susan-miller-v-division-of-employment-security-d85582","caseName":"Susan Miller\nvs.\nDivision of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD85582","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-05-30","year":2023,"display_summary":"Susan Miller appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits due to discharge for work-related misconduct. Miller argued that proper procedures were not followed during the review of her claim and that the Commission's factual findings were not supported by evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding Miller's procedural complaints unpreserved or without merit, and deferring to the Commission's credibility determinations regarding her discharge for chronic attendance policy violations.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195895","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/susan-miller-v-division-of-employment-security-d85582","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99670:2023-05-16","opinionId":"907ccee5-df4e-5fa2-923c-621bc0bf6ab4","slug":"john-lisle-appellant-v-meyer-electric-co-inc-respondent-c99670","caseName":"John Lisle, Appellant, vs. Meyer Electric Co., Inc., Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99670","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-05-16","year":2023,"display_summary":"John Lisle appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Meyer Electric Co., Inc., on his claim that Meyer Electric violated section 287.780 RSMo by refusing to rehire him in retaliation for exercising workers' compensation rights during prior employment. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that section 287.780, when strictly construed, applies only to discrimination against current employees. The Court concluded that Lisle was not an employee of Meyer Electric at the time of the alleged discriminatory refusal to rehire, thus negating an essential element of his claim.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","employment-law","summary-judgment","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-lisle-appellant-v-meyer-electric-co-inc-respondent-c99670","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110284:2023-05-09","opinionId":"7b7f8554-e2c3-583e-8a2f-05331c1cf55b","slug":"cibc-bank-usa-and-cibc-national-trust-company-appellants-v-christopher-wi-110284","caseName":"CIBC Bank USA and CIBC National Trust Company, Appellants, vs. Christopher William, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110284","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-05-09","year":2023,"display_summary":"CIBC Bank USA sued former employees Christopher Williams and Brian Landzaat, along with their new companies, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of loyalty, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment, stemming from their departure to form a competing wealth management business and solicit CIBC's customers and employees. The trial court dismissed CIBC's petition for failure to state a claim. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of all six counts, holding that CIBC's petition sufficiently alleged facts to state a claim for each cause of action, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195296","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cibc-bank-usa-and-cibc-national-trust-company-appellants-v-christopher-wi-110284","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-195013","opinionId":"b80f68eb-53dd-550b-bc09-3105a3c10ce5","slug":"greg-halderman-v-city-of-sturgeon-missouri-and-tyler-patterson-d85066","caseName":"Greg Halderman\nvs.\nCity of Sturgeon, Missouri and Tyler Patterson","caseNumber":"WD85066","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-05-02","year":2023,"display_summary":"Greg Halderman, the City of Sturgeon's Chief of Police, was terminated and sued the City for wrongful discharge and Alderman Tyler Patterson for tortious interference. The circuit court found Halderman's initial termination unlawful for lack of a contested-case hearing and a jury awarded him damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the circuit court's finding that the 2017 termination was unlawful and upheld the wrongful-discharge judgment against the City. However, it reversed the judgment against Patterson, concluding that an alderman is not a third party to the city's employment contract for tortious interference purposes. The court also granted Halderman's request for appellate attorney's fees against the City and remanded for their calculation.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","civil-procedure","governmental-immunity","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/greg-halderman-v-city-of-sturgeon-missouri-and-tyler-patterson-d85066","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85467:2023-04-18","opinionId":"bb76df97-2d83-596f-9ee2-c504eef8d0a8","slug":"jefferson-city-medical-group-pc-v-david-brummett-d85467","caseName":"Jefferson City Medical Group, P.C.\nvs. \nDavid Brummett","caseNumber":"WD85467","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Dr. David Brummett appealed a circuit court judgment that enforced a covenant not to compete in his employment agreement with Jefferson City Medical Group, P.C. The judgment also ordered Dr. Brummett to pay the Medical Group's attorney's fees, but did not determine the specific amount of those fees. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a judgment determining liability for attorney's fees without specifying the amount is not a final, appealable judgment under Missouri law. Consequently, the court also denied the parties' motions for attorney's fees on appeal without prejudice.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jefferson-city-medical-group-pc-v-david-brummett-d85467","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85580:2023-04-18","opinionId":"aecee94e-8807-59da-a53d-38011e341820","slug":"colleen-spurlock-v-city-of-columbia-missouri-d85580","caseName":"Colleen Spurlock\nvs.\nCity of Columbia, Missouri","caseNumber":"WD85580","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-04-18","year":2023,"display_summary":"Colleen Spurlock sued the City of Columbia, Missouri, her former employer, alleging retaliation under Missouri's public-employee whistleblower statute. The trial court dismissed her petition with prejudice. The appellate court reversed, holding that the City lacked standing to challenge the statute's constitutionality on vagueness grounds and that Spurlock had sufficiently pleaded facts to establish a claim under the whistleblower statute regarding disclosure, abuse of authority, and disciplinary action.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","governmental-immunity"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194543","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/colleen-spurlock-v-city-of-columbia-missouri-d85580","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85486:2023-04-11","opinionId":"1559529c-9b07-59af-917c-9cf2c73824d6","slug":"andrea-m-curns-v-phyllis-akins-d85486","caseName":"Andrea M. Curns\nvs. \nPhyllis Akins","caseNumber":"WD85486","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-04-11","year":2023,"display_summary":"Andrea Curns sued Phyllis Akins for assault and battery. Akins, an employee of a customer of Curns's employer (Aerotek), moved to compel arbitration, arguing she was a third-party beneficiary to Curns's arbitration agreement with Aerotek. The trial court denied Akins's motion, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the arbitration agreement did not clearly express an intent to benefit employees of Aerotek's customers, and the \"inextricably intertwined\" claims theory for equitable estoppel was inapplicable.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andrea-m-curns-v-phyllis-akins-d85486","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110948:2023-04-04","opinionId":"4eb12b84-ad9c-583a-b650-c88f10024b48","slug":"st-louis-police-officers-association-respondent-v-st-louis-county-appella-110948","caseName":"St. Louis Police Officer's Association, Respondent, vs. St. Louis County, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110948","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-04","year":2023,"display_summary":"The St. Louis Police Officer's Association (SLPOA) sought to represent investigators and non-supervisory attorneys in St. Louis County's prosecuting attorney's office. After the County refused voluntary recognition, an election was held, which the SLPOA won. The County subsequently refused to bargain, arguing the election was void because it was not conducted by the Missouri State Board of Mediation, especially after House Bill 1413 (HB 1413) was declared unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the SLPOA, holding that the pre-HB 1413 public sector labor law does not require such elections to be conducted by the Board, and thus the County's refusal to bargain violated the employees' constitutional rights.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194099","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/st-louis-police-officers-association-respondent-v-st-louis-county-appella-110948","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37663:2023-04-03","opinionId":"eba5e617-9efb-5f7a-a225-c26815915f38","slug":"queen-barrett-respondent-v-mallory-moving-storage-inc-dba-apple-moving-of-d37663","caseName":"QUEEN BARRETT, Respondent\nvs.\nMALLORY MOVING & STORAGE, INC., d/b/a APPLE MOVING OF ROLLA, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37663","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-03","year":2023,"display_summary":"Queen Barrett sued her former employer, Mallory Moving & Storage, Inc., for discrimination. This is the second interlocutory appeal from the circuit court's denial of Mallory's motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's order, finding that Mallory failed to produce any evidence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, thus failing to meet its burden of production.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194019","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/queen-barrett-respondent-v-mallory-moving-storage-inc-dba-apple-moving-of-d37663","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85747:2023-03-28","opinionId":"7e453aaf-c7f5-53f3-9105-4e7b9dc51fc1","slug":"floyd-s-wiedner-v-ferrellgas-inc-et-al-d85747","caseName":"Floyd S. Wiedner \nvs. \nFerrellgas, Inc., et al","caseNumber":"WD85747","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-03-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Floyd Steven Wiedner sued his former employer, Ferrellgas, Inc., alleging violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act. After an arbitrator awarded Wiedner damages and attorney's fees, he moved the trial court to partially vacate the award, arguing the arbitrator improperly reduced his requested attorney's fees and denied pre- and post-judgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Wiedner's motion to vacate the attorney's fee award, finding the arbitrator acted within discretion. However, the court reversed the denial of post-judgment interest, remanding for the trial court to modify its judgment to include it.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193599","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/floyd-s-wiedner-v-ferrellgas-inc-et-al-d85747","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110687:2023-03-28","opinionId":"499ea89e-d832-5054-94d4-c11292471c5a","slug":"ms-bracely-mosley-appellant-v-hunter-engineering-co-respondent-110687","caseName":"M.S. Bracely-Mosley, Appellant, v. Hunter Engineering Co., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110687","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"M.S. Bracely-Mosley sued her employer, Hunter Engineering Co., alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer on both counts. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the alleged harassment did not constitute a tangible employment action or create an objectively hostile work environment, and that the retaliation claim was waived because it was not raised before the trial court.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=194095","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ms-bracely-mosley-appellant-v-hunter-engineering-co-respondent-110687","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110514:2023-03-21","opinionId":"cb0de46d-35b5-5845-b5a3-52bbc513d253","slug":"debbie-m-earley-appellant-v-mary-v-dunn-respondent-110514","caseName":"Debbie M. Earley, Appellant, v. Mary V. Dunn, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110514","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Debbie Earley, an in-home caregiver, sued her employer, Mary Dunn, for negligence after being sexually assaulted by Dunn's grandson in Dunn's home. Earley argued that the employer-employee relationship created a duty for Dunn to protect her from third-party criminal acts. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Dunn, finding no such duty. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employer-employee relationship alone does not constitute a special relationship giving rise to a duty to protect against unforeseeable third-party criminal acts, and that prior statements to the contrary were dictum.","primaryTopic":"negligence","topicSlugs":["negligence","employment-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","personal-injury"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193476","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/debbie-m-earley-appellant-v-mary-v-dunn-respondent-110514","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110852:2023-03-21","opinionId":"8882c53b-173c-55ab-8d8f-b7ea8d7e5c70","slug":"dorsey-thompson-claimantappellant-v-special-school-district-of-st-louis-c-110852","caseName":"Dorsey Thompson, Claimant/Appellant, v. Special School District of St. Louis County, MO. Educational Facilities Authority and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110852","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Dorsey Thompson appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's finding that he lacked good cause for an untimely appeal of an unemployment benefits denial. The appellate court dismissed Thompson's appeal. The court concluded that Thompson failed to challenge the grounds upon which the Commission dismissed his claim and did not substantially comply with the rules of appellate briefing, specifically Rule 84.04.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","employment-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=193478","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dorsey-thompson-claimantappellant-v-special-school-district-of-st-louis-c-110852","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-192824","opinionId":"a5f83827-6010-5248-a440-663d39ad32ca","slug":"john-j-benoist-jr-appellant-v-westin-trading-inc-and-division-of-employme-110753","caseName":"John J. Benoist, Jr., Appellant, vs. Westin Trading, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110753","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"John J. Benoist, Jr. appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of his claim for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Benoist contended he was eligible for PUA benefits under a CARES Act provision for individuals who refused to return to a workplace non-compliant with safety recommendations. The appellate court reversed and remanded the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission failed to address Benoist's eligibility under the specific Safety Provision of the CARES Act, thereby preventing meaningful appellate review.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192824","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-j-benoist-jr-appellant-v-westin-trading-inc-and-division-of-employme-110753","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110563:2023-02-28","opinionId":"aa9eb328-8f19-57dd-ba9e-7550c7cde0fb","slug":"melanie-l-hill-appellant-v-sm-huber-enterprises-inc-and-division-of-emplo-110563","caseName":"Melanie L. Hill, Appellant, vs. S.M. Huber Enterprises, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110563","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Melanie L. Hill appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits. Hill, a temporary employee, contended the Commission erred in finding she voluntarily quit, arguing her departure was due to illness and that she attempted to contact her employer for reassignment. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, deferring to its factual finding that Hill did not contact her employer for reassignment, which constituted a voluntary quit under the relevant statutes.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192823","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melanie-l-hill-appellant-v-sm-huber-enterprises-inc-and-division-of-emplo-110563","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85091:2023-02-21","opinionId":"1e847cef-36a7-5ad4-8727-d8c5bdfef687","slug":"city-of-harrisonville-et-al-v-missouri-dept-of-natural-resources-and-boar-d85091","caseName":"City of Harrisonville, et al.\nvs. \nMissouri Dept. of Natural Resources and Board of Trustees for the Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund.","caseNumber":"WD85091","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-02-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"The City of Harrisonville appealed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Petroleum Storage Tank Insurance Fund Board. The City alleged violations of the Missouri Sunshine Law for withholding a letter concerning a former executive director's conduct. The appellate court affirmed, finding the letter was a closed record under Section 610.021(3) as it related to employee performance and discipline. The court also found no genuine issue of material fact and no knowing or purposeful Sunshine Law violations by the Respondents.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","employment-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/city-of-harrisonville-et-al-v-missouri-dept-of-natural-resources-and-boar-d85091","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110701:2023-02-14","opinionId":"5add8aec-2226-5e02-87d9-84ef83c7d8b5","slug":"robin-l-mecey-appellant-v-harps-food-stores-inc-and-division-of-employmen-110701","caseName":"Robin L. Mecey, Appellant, v. Harps Food Stores, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110701","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-14","year":2023,"display_summary":"Robin Mecey appealed her disqualification from unemployment benefits after voluntarily leaving her employment with Harps Food Stores, Inc. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's decision that she left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer. The appellate court dismissed Mecey's appeal due to numerous and serious briefing deficiencies, finding that her brief failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192420","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/robin-l-mecey-appellant-v-harps-food-stores-inc-and-division-of-employmen-110701","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110246:2022-12-27","opinionId":"dd895567-07b3-5e50-87a1-8680d0c9bcf4","slug":"oliver-lienhard-appellant-v-total-lock-security-inc-and-division-of-emplo-110246","caseName":"Oliver Lienhard, Appellant, vs. Total Lock & Security, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110246","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-12-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"Oliver Lienhard appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which denied his claim for unemployment benefits after his employer, Total Lock & Security, Inc., terminated him for alleged misconduct. The Commission had adopted a decision from an appeals referee who did not conduct the original hearing or hear live testimony. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new hearing, holding that the Division of Employment Security failed to comply with state regulations requiring a stated reason for reassigning a hearing officer when the original officer cannot complete the appeal.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191438","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/oliver-lienhard-appellant-v-total-lock-security-inc-and-division-of-emplo-110246","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110645:2022-12-20","opinionId":"2b761c35-aa40-5feb-99d8-40c159c2fc0f","slug":"hampton-s-brown-et-al-respondent-v-gojet-airlines-llc-appellant-110645","caseName":"Hampton S. Brown, et al., Respondent, vs. Gojet Airlines, LLC, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED110645","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-12-20","year":2022,"display_summary":"GoJet Airlines, LLC appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a breach of contract action filed by Hampton S. Brown, a former pilot. GoJet argued the trial court erred by ruling on the arbitration agreement's validity despite a delegation provision and by finding a statutory notice provision was required. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it specified governance by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but Brown, as a pilot, is exempt from the FAA under Section 1.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","contracts","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191337","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/hampton-s-brown-et-al-respondent-v-gojet-airlines-llc-appellant-110645","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84714:2022-12-20","opinionId":"ac1f7beb-515b-5e9b-a1eb-8656201a1cf2","slug":"marilyn-washington-v-sioux-chief-mfg-co-inc-d84714","caseName":"Marilyn Washington\nvs. \nSioux Chief MFG. CO., Inc.","caseNumber":"WD84714","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-20","year":2022,"display_summary":"Marilyn Washington sued Sioux Chief Manufacturing Co., Inc. for employment discrimination and retaliation under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The trial court entered a default judgment against Sioux Chief as a sanction for repeated discovery violations and awarded damages. On appeal, the Western District affirmed the trial court's discovery sanctions, preclusion from the damages hearing, and finding that Sioux Chief waived its right to a jury trial on damages. However, the court reversed the damages award, holding that the trial court plainly erred by exceeding the statutory cap, and remanded for recalculation of damages.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marilyn-washington-v-sioux-chief-mfg-co-inc-d84714","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85078:2022-12-13","opinionId":"7d37e3dd-6e2c-50da-a11b-aaa85257de22","slug":"sherice-renee-miller-weaver-v-dieomatic-incorporated-dba-lmv-automotive-s-d85078","caseName":"Sherice Renee Miller-Weaver\nvs. \nDieomatic Incorporated, d/b/a LMV Automotive Systems","caseNumber":"WD85078","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-13","year":2022,"display_summary":"Sherice Renee Miller-Weaver sued her former employer, LMV Automotive Systems, alleging a racially hostile work environment under the Missouri Human Rights Act and failure to issue a proper service letter. Following a jury trial that found in Weaver's favor, LMV appealed, raising four points of error concerning the application of MHRA amendments, pleading requirements, and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points, concluding that the pre-2017 MHRA applied and that Weaver's claims were properly pled and supported by evidence. The case was remanded for a determination of appellate attorney fees and costs.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191134","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sherice-renee-miller-weaver-v-dieomatic-incorporated-dba-lmv-automotive-s-d85078","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84917:2022-12-06","opinionId":"3544b5e0-311c-5b32-b404-4cea70fe44ef","slug":"missouri-corrections-officers-association-inc-et-al-v-missouri-office-of-d84917","caseName":"Missouri Corrections Officers Association, Inc., et al.\nvs. \nMissouri Office of Administration, et al.","caseNumber":"WD84917","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"The Missouri Corrections Officers Association (MOCOA) challenged the Office of Administration's (OA) decisions to suspend and deny payroll deductions for MOCOA dues, and also challenged new administrative rules. The trial court found OA's actions unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious, and declared the rules unconstitutional for violating MOCOA's rights to organize and bargain collectively, free speech, association, and equal protection. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the rules impermissibly discriminated against employee associations that collectively bargain and that OA's actions were arbitrary and capricious.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190955","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/missouri-corrections-officers-association-inc-et-al-v-missouri-office-of-d84917","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85135:2022-11-29","opinionId":"50477176-acb8-5d0c-a812-6933e8fea77b","slug":"latice-hicks-v-saint-lukes-northland-smithville-d85135","caseName":"Latice Hicks \nvs. \nSaint Luke's Northland-Smithville","caseNumber":"WD85135","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-11-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"Latice Hicks appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Saint Luke's Northland-Smithville on her claims of workers' compensation retaliation and hostile work environment. The appellate court dismissed Hicks' appeal, finding that her brief failed to substantially comply with the briefing requirements of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04. Specifically, the court identified deficiencies in her Points Relied On, Statement of Facts, and Argument sections, which prevented the court from reaching the merits of the appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","employment-law","workers-compensation"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190774","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/latice-hicks-v-saint-lukes-northland-smithville-d85135","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110402:2022-11-29","opinionId":"1eb4fc6b-8dbc-5eb1-a560-0a54554f06e4","slug":"patricia-a-thiemann-respondent-v-parkway-school-district-appellant-and-di-110402","caseName":"Patricia A. Thiemann, Respondent, vs. Parkway School District, Appellant, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110402","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-29","year":2022,"display_summary":"Patricia Thiemann, a bus driver for Parkway School District, sought unemployment benefits during the summer break of 2020, arguing she lacked \"reasonable assurance\" of re-employment for the fall term due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission found in her favor, and Parkway appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding there was sufficient competent evidence that Thiemann did not have reasonable assurance of employment, thus entitling her to benefits.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190813","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patricia-a-thiemann-respondent-v-parkway-school-district-appellant-and-di-110402","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99512:2022-11-22","opinionId":"3d2e74d2-fea5-53c1-9423-16e85e6ac112","slug":"alvin-brockington-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-similarly-situated-ap-c99512","caseName":"Alvin Brockington, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly-Situated, Appellant, vs. New Horizons Enterprises, LLC, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99512","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Alvin Brockington, on behalf of a class of employees, sued New Horizons Enterprises, LLC, alleging violations of the Missouri Prevailing Wage Act for work performed on properties in Kansas City. The circuit court granted summary judgment for New Horizons, which the court of appeals affirmed. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case, finding a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the employees were employed \"on behalf of any public body engaged in the construction\" within the meaning of the Act.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190673","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/alvin-brockington-individually-and-on-behalf-of-all-similarly-situated-ap-c99512","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110346:2022-10-18","opinionId":"8c56f502-defe-5adb-a89a-65a3952c2ba0","slug":"john-d-walker-iii-respondent-v-john-j-smith-masonry-company-appellant-and-110346","caseName":"John D. Walker III, Respondent, vs. John J. Smith Masonry Company, Appellant, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110346","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-10-18","year":2022,"display_summary":"John J. Smith Masonry Company appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to award John D. Walker unemployment benefits. The Employer argued that the Commission's factual finding that Walker was involuntarily discharged due to a lack of work was not supported by competent and substantial evidence. The appellate court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that Walker voluntarily quit his employment by failing to obtain a required work permit for continued employment, rather than being discharged due to lack of work.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189896","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/john-d-walker-iii-respondent-v-john-j-smith-masonry-company-appellant-and-110346","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110122:2022-10-04","opinionId":"3717a79d-2ce4-5019-b260-0d5e04a0e42a","slug":"jonathan-clayton-appellant-v-jars-td-inc-and-division-of-employment-secur-110122","caseName":"Jonathan Clayton, Appellant, vs. Jars TD, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110122","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-10-04","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jonathan Clayton appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision disqualifying him from unemployment benefits, arguing his former employer, Jars TD, Inc., improperly objected to his claim and that the Commission lacked competent evidence to find he voluntarily quit without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision on the merits, holding that Jars TD, as his last employer, properly protested the claim and that Clayton failed to act in good faith by quitting his job after only ten to fifteen minutes without allowing his employer to resolve a safety concern. The court dismissed Clayton's third point on appeal as multifarious.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jonathan-clayton-appellant-v-jars-td-inc-and-division-of-employment-secur-110122","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99179:2022-10-04","opinionId":"bee5b5ea-9d52-50ff-9b06-efee66393ec2","slug":"american-federation-of-state-county-and-municipal-employees-afl-cio-counc-c99179","caseName":"American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 61, et al., Respondents, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC99179","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-10-04","year":2022,"display_summary":"The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and other unions sued the State of Missouri, challenging Senate Bill No. 1007, which designated most state employees as at-will, and the Personnel Advisory Board's (PAB) rules implementing it. The circuit court ruled in favor of the Unions, finding SB 1007 did not mandate at-will employment and the PAB rules were unauthorized. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that SB 1007 mandates at-will employment, does not violate constitutional collective bargaining or contract clauses, and many PAB rules exceeded statutory authority by restricting bargaining over terms consistent with at-will employment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189620","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/american-federation-of-state-county-and-municipal-employees-afl-cio-counc-c99179","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85172:2022-09-27","opinionId":"7160aa69-1c85-5cce-99db-db3289cc2cf6","slug":"sarah-channel-lauren-channel-mary-channel-v-stephen-walker-individually-d85172","caseName":"Sarah Channel, Lauren Channel, Mary Channel\nvs. \nStephen Walker, Individually","caseNumber":"WD85172","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-09-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"Sarah, Lauren, and Mary Channel appealed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Stephen Walker in their wrongful death action. They alleged Walker, a co-employee and manager, intentionally and negligently caused Thomas Channel's heat-related death by failing to follow heat stress protocols and assigning him to a long route in a truck without air conditioning. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Walker's alleged actions were encompassed within the employer's nondelegable duty to provide a safe workplace and did not constitute a breach of an independent duty of care.","primaryTopic":"workers-compensation","topicSlugs":["workers-compensation","negligence","summary-judgment","employment-law","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189376","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sarah-channel-lauren-channel-mary-channel-v-stephen-walker-individually-d85172","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"workers-compensation","label":"Workers' Compensation","href":"/practice-areas/workers-compensation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/workers-compensation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110169:2022-09-27","opinionId":"fd8cb0e1-0f4d-5c36-98dd-b2b32f9f2306","slug":"martin-mccabe-appellant-adp-total-source-fl-xviii-inc-and-division-of-emp-110169","caseName":"Martin McCabe, Appellant, ADP Total Source FL XVIII, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED110169","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-09-27","year":2022,"display_summary":"Martin McCabe appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to disqualify him from unemployment benefits after he voluntarily resigned from ADP Total Source. McCabe argued he had good cause to leave due to childcare responsibilities, educational pursuits, and supervisor demands, and that he left for a more remunerative job as an independent contractor for Uber and Lyft. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that parental obligations and independent contractor work do not constitute good cause or a \"job\" under the unemployment benefits statute.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189437","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/martin-mccabe-appellant-adp-total-source-fl-xviii-inc-and-division-of-emp-110169","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84773:2022-09-13","opinionId":"5584bf7d-78a3-520e-8a36-ae7b8c2f0e93","slug":"gregory-stiens-v-missouri-department-of-agriculture-d84773","caseName":"Gregory Stiens\nvs. \nMissouri Department of Agriculture","caseNumber":"WD84773","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-09-13","year":2022,"display_summary":"Gregory Stiens appealed the circuit court's order denying his motion for default judgment on his petition for judicial review of an Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment, holding that an order denying a motion for default judgment does not dispose of all pending issues. The court also clarified that the circuit court retains jurisdiction to conduct its Chapter 536 review of the AHC's decision on remand and must enter a final judgment.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/gregory-stiens-v-missouri-department-of-agriculture-d84773","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84637:2022-09-06","opinionId":"ab031927-3cf9-56ab-8bb4-abfc1e8b789a","slug":"xinsheng-randy-gan-v-penny-schrock-appointing-authority-department-of-soc-d84637","caseName":"Xinsheng (Randy) Gan\nvs. \nPenny Schrock, Appointing Authority, Department of Social Services, Division of Finance and Administrative Services","caseNumber":"WD84637","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-09-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Xinsheng (Randy) Gan appealed the Administrative Hearing Commission's denial of his application for attorney's fees, which had been upheld by the circuit court. This appeal is the latest in a series of cases stemming from Gan's dismissal from employment and subsequent reinstatement. The appellate court dismissed Gan's appeal due to numerous and repeated violations of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.04 regarding briefing requirements, including a deficient statement of facts, improper points relied on, and a lack of authority or preservation statements in the argument section.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188916","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/xinsheng-randy-gan-v-penny-schrock-appointing-authority-department-of-soc-d84637","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85108:2022-08-30","opinionId":"62b9462d-b47f-5b41-ad72-032e7c300420","slug":"james-f-green-v-division-of-employment-security-d85108","caseName":"James F. Green\nvs. \nDivision of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD85108","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-08-30","year":2022,"display_summary":"James F. Green appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which affirmed his disqualification from unemployment benefits for voluntarily quitting his employment. The appellate court dismissed Green's appeal. This dismissal was due to Green's numerous and extensive violations of appellate briefing rules, specifically Rule 84.04, which prevented the court from competently reviewing the merits of his arguments.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-f-green-v-division-of-employment-security-d85108","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99000:2022-08-09","opinionId":"d786c35c-ce7f-504e-a85b-e1bdaa0ce69a","slug":"state-ex-rel-jim-swoboda-respondent-v-missouri-commission-on-human-rights-c99000","caseName":"State ex rel. Jim Swoboda, Respondent, vs. Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Appellant, Alisa Warren, Appellant, and Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC99000","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-08-09","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jim Swoboda filed a discrimination charge against the Law Firm with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, which dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Swoboda sought judicial review, and the circuit court issued a permanent writ of mandamus directing the Commission to accept and investigate the charge. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that Swoboda failed to establish a clear, unequivocal, specific right to mandamus relief because the question of whether the Missouri Human Rights Act requires an employment relationship for such claims was an issue of first impression.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-jim-swoboda-respondent-v-missouri-commission-on-human-rights-c99000","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84578:2022-07-19","opinionId":"750f173f-cfaf-52e1-a263-31299164ffe6","slug":"yuzi-mussa-v-division-of-employment-security-d84578","caseName":"Yuzi Mussa\nvs.\nDivision of Employment Security","caseNumber":"WD84578","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-07-19","year":2022,"display_summary":"Yuzi Mussa appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which found she was overpaid unemployment compensation benefits due to a period of disqualification. The Division of Employment Security moved to dismiss Mussa's appellate brief for failure to comply with Rule 84.04. The appellate court denied the motion to dismiss, exercising its discretion to review the appeal on the merits, and reversed the Commission's decision, finding it was not supported by substantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"employment-law","topicSlugs":["employment-law","administrative-law","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/yuzi-mussa-v-division-of-employment-security-d84578","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110097:2022-07-12","opinionId":"be942e8c-d1b0-503a-a81c-4e2f734f22af","slug":"beth-owen-appellant-v-the-washington-university-respondent-110097","caseName":"Beth Owen, Appellant, v. The Washington University, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED110097","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-12","year":2022,"display_summary":"Appellant Beth Owen sued The Washington University for wrongful termination, and the circuit court dismissed her petition and granted summary judgment. The circuit court later ruled on Owen's motion to retax costs. On appeal, Owen challenged both the dismissal/summary judgment and the retaxation of costs. The appellate court dismissed the appeal regarding the wrongful termination claim as untimely for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the circuit court's order retaxing costs.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187874","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/beth-owen-appellant-v-the-washington-university-respondent-110097","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37335:2022-07-05","opinionId":"799a0e01-3d04-5477-9a5b-7b3b43d7c835","slug":"kimberly-l-waldner-plaintiff-respondent-v-dexter-r-xi-school-district-def-d37335","caseName":"KIMBERLY L. WALDNER, Plaintiff-Respondent\nv.\nDEXTER R-XI SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37335","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-07-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kimberly L. Waldner, a teacher, appealed the termination of her contract by the Dexter R-XI Board of Education to the circuit court, which reversed the Board's decision and ordered her reinstatement. The Board appealed, and the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment. The appellate court found that Teacher's pro se brief contained significant deficiencies, including non-compliant points relied on and a lack of record citations, which precluded meaningful review. Consequently, the court remanded the case with directions for the circuit court to affirm the Board's original decision.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","administrative-law","employment-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187755","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kimberly-l-waldner-plaintiff-respondent-v-dexter-r-xi-school-district-def-d37335","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84594:2022-07-05","opinionId":"1e452fc6-294c-52e4-bf24-5ea73915b2e9","slug":"state-of-missouri-ex-rel-jeanette-layton-v-missouri-commission-on-human-r-d84594","caseName":"State of Missouri, ex rel., Jeanette Layton\nvs. \nMissouri Commission on Human Rights, et al","caseNumber":"WD84594","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-07-05","year":2022,"display_summary":"Jeanette Layton filed an age discrimination complaint with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (Commission) against Mercy Health East Community (Mercy). After 180 days, Layton requested a right-to-sue letter, but the Commission denied it, claiming lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court granted Layton's petition for a writ of mandamus, ordering the Commission to issue the letter. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Commission had a ministerial duty to issue the right-to-sue letter and terminate proceedings once 180 days passed and a request was made, regardless of a disputed jurisdictional issue concerning the employer's status.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","employment-law","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187716","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-ex-rel-jeanette-layton-v-missouri-commission-on-human-r-d84594","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}