Allison Bayne, Claimant/Appellant v. Our Little Haven and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownED82589
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Allison Bayne, Claimant/Appellant v. Our Little Haven and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED82589 Handdown Date: 06/30/2003 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Allison Bayne, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Our Little Haven, Pro Se and Larry R. Ruhmann Opinion Summary: Allison Bayne appeals from the labor and industrial relations commission's decision, which affirmed the appeals tribunal's decision finding that Bayne was disqualified for unemployment benefits. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Division Five holds: Where multiple portions of the transcript are not transcribed because the tape was "unintelligible" and several of these portions go directly to Bayne's defense, the case must be reversed and remanded to the commission to order another hearing before an appeals referee of the division of employment security. Citation: Opinion Author: LAWRENCE E. MOONEY Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Crahan, J., and Dowd, Jr., J., concur. Opinion: The claimant, Allison Bayne, appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which affirmed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. After a telephone hearing, the Tribunal disqualified the claimant for unemployment benefits after concluding that she left her employment with Our Little Haven voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work or the employer.
The claimant complains that the transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal was incomplete because the court reporter marked several parts of it as "unintelligible," and therefore claimant requests a new hearing. In response to the claimant's request, the respondent Division of Employment Security concedes that the case should be remanded to the Commission with orders to hold a new hearing. The transcript of the telephone hearing contains twenty-eight instances that are marked "unintelligible." During the hearing, the claimant had admitted that she told her supervisor that she was leaving work to move to Spain with her boyfriend. However, in her testimony, she also asserted that she had told others, including her supervisor, that she was unhappy with her job because it did not equate to the job description she was given when she was hired. She said she was frustrated with her changing job duties, which created confusion and disagreements with her co-workers. Several of the unintelligible portions appear to directly relate to the claimant's defense that she did have good cause attributable to her employment, including her assigned duties and her complaints to her supervisor. Without an adequate record, this Court is unable to determine under section 288.210, RSMo 2000, whether competent and substantial evidence exists to support the findings of the Commission. Gordon v. Labor and Indus. Relations Com'n , 723 S.W.2d 903, 904 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987). Accordingly, we grant the claimant's request and reverse and remand this cause to the Commission to order another hearing before an appeals referee of the Division of Employment Security. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#ED113602
The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's disability discrimination and hostile work environment claims under the Missouri Human Rights Act because she failed to plead facts demonstrating legal disability or a hostile work environment based on disability. However, the court reversed and remanded the retaliation claim, finding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts establishing the elements of retaliation under the Act based on her complaints of disability discrimination.
Karla K. Allsberry, Appellant, vs. Patrick S. Flynn, et al., Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 23, 2025#ED113270
Connie Haworth vs. Guest Services, Inc., et al.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictNovember 25, 2025#WD87623
Victoria Amrine vs. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Employer, and Division of Employment Security(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictNovember 25, 2025#WD88066
Phillip Weeks, Appellant, vs. City of St. Louis, Respondent.(2025)
Supreme Court of MissouriNovember 4, 2025#SC101018