Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Monica Smith, Claimant/Appellant, v. Roth Industries, Inc., d/b/a Southside Temporaries, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

Decision date: UnknownED84149

Parties & Roles

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"dismissed","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: Monica Smith, Claimant/Appellant, v. Roth Industries, Inc., d/b/a Southside Temporaries, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED84149 Handdown Date: 04/27/2004 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Cynthia Ann Quetsch Opinion Summary: Monica Smith appeals from the labor and industrial relations commission's decision regarding her unemployment benefits. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Smith was the prevailing party at the commission and was awarded her unemployment benefits. As a result, she is not aggrieved by the commission's decision, and her appeal must be dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: Sherri B. Sullivan, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Mooney and Draper III, JJ., concur. Opinion: Monica Smith (Claimant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) regarding her unemployment benefits. Because we find Claimant is not aggrieved by the Commission's decision, we dismiss her appeal. A deputy granted Claimant's claim for unemployment benefits, concluding she was able to work and available to work. Her employer, Southside Temporaries (Employer), appealed to the Appeals Tribunal. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed the

decision of the deputy finding Claimant eligible for unemployment benefits. Employer filed an application for review with the Commission, which affirmed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. Claimant then filed an appeal to this Court. Her notice of appeal and case information form seem to indicate that Claimant believed her claim for unemployment benefits had been denied. The Division of Employment Security (Division) has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, pointing out that Claimant prevailed in the litigation before the Commission and therefore, she is not an aggrieved party entitled to an appeal. Claimant has failed to file a response. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, provides that "any party aggrieved by such decision" of the Commission may appeal to the appropriate appellate court. A party is not aggrieved when the party receives all of the relief sought. Gibbs v. McClain , 964 S.W.2d 850, 851 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998). Claimant was awarded her unemployment benefits and prevailed in Employer's appeal to the Commission. Because she received all of the relief sought, she is not aggrieved by the Commission's decision. The Division's motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. 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.

Statutes

Cases

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