Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Edward Withers, Claimant/Respondent, v. Lorenz & Associates, Inc., Defendant/Appellant and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"modified","scope":null}

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.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar employment law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

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: Edward Withers, Claimant/Respondent, v. Lorenz & Associates, Inc., Defendant/Appellant and Division of Employment Security, Respondent. Case Number: 73714 Handdown Date: 09/15/1998 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Mark W. Weisman Counsel for Respondent: Party Acting Pro Se and Alan J. Downs Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Simon, P.J., Knaup Crane and Mooney, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Opinion modified by Court's own motion on October 27, 1998. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. Employer, Lorenz & Associates, Inc. appeals from the order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission finding claimant was not disqualified for benefits by reason of his voluntary separation from work. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The findings and conclusions of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

Kathryn Torre-Stewart, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. The Washington University-St. Louis, Respondent/Defendant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#ED113602

affirmed

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.

Read The Employment Law GuideGuide
Civil Litigationper_curiam7,351 words
Read opinion