Andrea Williams, Appellant v. Central Missouri Pizza, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownSC88217
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
Case Style: Andrea Williams, Appellant v. Central Missouri Pizza, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: SC88217 Handdown Date: 06/12/2007 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Andrea Williams Counsel for Respondent: Larry R. Ruhmann Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. All concur. Opinion: This slip opinion is subject to modification until the Court has ruled on the parties' motions for rehearing, if any, and will become final only after the Court issues its mandate. To see when the Court issues its mandate, please check the docket entries for the case on Case.net. Andrea Williams worked for a pizza delivery service. She was scheduled to work Christmas eve beginning at 5:00 p.m. Although requested to do so, her supervisor declined to adjust the schedule. Williams did not report for work as scheduled and was discharged. Williams sought unemployment benefits. The commission determined Williams was discharged for misconduct
connected with her work and denied benefits. Williams appeals. The order of the commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An opinion would have no precedential value. The commission's decision is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). All concur. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
John Doe, Jane Doe, Jan Doe, Janet Doe, and Judy Doe, Individually and On Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Meritas Health Corporation and Board of Trustees of North Kansas City Hospital(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87830
The court reversed the circuit court's grant of sovereign immunity dismissal, finding that plaintiffs' common-law claims against the hospital board could proceed. However, the court affirmed dismissal of statutory claims for computer tampering and identity theft, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining claims.
Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 30, 2025#ED113329
Jayla Chairse, Appellant, vs. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictSeptember 16, 2025#ED113189
Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, Appellant, vs. Missouri Charter Public School Commission and Missouri State Board of Education, Respondents.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 22, 2025#ED112985
MARK EDWARD HOOD, Petitioner-Appellant v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictDecember 17, 2024#SD38450