Division of Employment Security Missouri Cases

Jayla Chairse appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision dismissing her application for review concerning an unemployment benefits overpayment. The Commission had dismissed her application as untimely. The appellate court dismissed Chairse's appeal, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because her notice of appeal was filed beyond the statutory 20-day deadline after the Commission's decision became final. The court also held that the Commission's certification of mailing was sufficient evidence of notice for purposes of calculating the appeal deadline.

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.

Michael C. Schmidt appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming an Appeals Tribunal's finding that he was overpaid $4,900 in unemployment benefits. The overpayment stemmed from a disqualification determination issued ten months after benefits were paid, which Schmidt argued was untimely and led to the bulk of the overpayment. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Division of Employment Security failed to comply with its statutory mandate to promptly examine claims and that the overpayment calculation was not supported by substantial evidence due to the Division's procedural delay.

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.

Dana Jensen appealed a decision by the Division of Employment Security regarding an overpayment of unemployment benefits. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed Jensen's appeal for failure to appear at a scheduled hearing, and the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed that dismissal. On appeal to the Western District, Jensen challenged the merits of the overpayment determination, but the court dismissed his appeal because he failed to challenge the Commission's decision regarding his failure to appear, thus abandoning the only issue properly before the appellate court.

Jamie Marx appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision affirming the Division of Employment Security's denial of his petition for reassessment of unemployment benefits. Marx had previously been found ineligible for benefits and overpaid, but his appeals of those initial determinations were untimely, making them final. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding it was supported by competent and substantial evidence that the assessment was properly made and calculated, and that Marx was properly served with notice.

Samantha B. Bourne appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of unemployment benefits, arguing that improper notice from the Division of Employment Security violated her due process rights by leading to the dismissal of her appeals as untimely. The Commission, however, had treated her appeals as timely and denied them on the merits, finding she was disqualified from benefits because she was not unemployed. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, denying Bourne's points on appeal because the Commission did not find her appeals untimely and her due process argument was unpreserved.

Linda Runnels, a seventy-five-year-old substitute teacher, was laid off due to COVID-19 and received unemployment benefits, which the Division of Employment Security later determined were overpaid. Runnels appealed the overpayment determination, but the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's dismissal of her appeal as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the Division's email notification was legally sufficient to trigger the appeal deadline and that equitable tolling principles could not extend the mandatory statutory deadline.

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.

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.

Eniz Poljarevic appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision affirming the dismissal of his appeal from an overpayment determination of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation benefits. Poljarevic argued that repayment would cause financial hardship and that he was improperly denied a telephone hearing to show good cause for his untimely appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Missouri law does not permit an extension of time for appealing an overpayment determination, even if good cause for late filing exists.

Vivian DePaul appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits and affirming an overpayment determination. The appellate court dismissed DePaul's appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the initial eligibility decision due to an untimely appeal. Additionally, the court could not consider arguments regarding overpayment waivers because those issues were not raised before the Commission.

Shannon Maxwell appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's dismissal of her request for unemployment benefits. The Commission had affirmed the appeals tribunal's dismissal of her appeal after she failed to appear at a scheduled telephone hearing. The appellate court dismissed Maxwell's appeal, finding that her brief failed to substantially comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04, thus preserving nothing for review.

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.

Timothy W. Johnes appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his appeal of prior decisions that found he was improperly paid unemployment benefits because he was unavailable for work. The Western District reversed and remanded, finding insufficient evidence to support the Commission's decision and that the Commission abused its discretion in dismissing Johnes's appeal for failure to appear at hearings. The court also found that a subsequent hearing notice vacated a prior dismissal, making Johnes's application for review timely.

Jamie Marx appealed five orders from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which had dismissed his administrative appeals as untimely. Marx had appealed determinations of ineligibility for unemployment benefits and overpayment of benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's orders, holding that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding no good cause for the untimely appeal of the ineligibility determination, and that appeals of overpayment determinations are not subject to extension for good cause.

Smaila Mujakic appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's finding that she failed to show good cause for her untimely appeal of an unemployment benefits overpayment determination. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision. It held that the statutory "good cause" exception for extending the appeal filing period does not apply to non-fraudulent overpayment determinations, despite expressing sympathy for the claimant's situation.

Iria Hapsari Kline appealed two decisions from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which had affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's dismissal of her appeals as untimely. Kline had been determined to be overpaid unemployment benefits and attempted to appeal the overpayment determinations after the 30-day deadline. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that while the Commission cited the wrong statute, the appeal was indeed untimely under the correct regulation, and the "good cause" exception for late filings does not apply to overpayment determinations.

Mary Ann Dewes appealed an order from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission that dismissed her application for review as untimely, concerning an overpayment of unemployment compensation benefits. The Commission's dismissal order incorrectly referenced an Appeals Tribunal decision date and disregarded a subsequent Appeals Tribunal decision it deemed a nullity. The appellate court reversed the Commission's dismissal order and remanded the case, instructing the Commission to correctly identify and address the timeliness of Dewes's application for review of the May 28, 2021 Appeals Tribunal Corrected Decision.

Tracy Sanders appealed two decisions from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which affirmed determinations by the Division of Employment Security that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits and had been overpaid. Sanders' appeals to the Tribunal were deemed untimely, and the Commission affirmed. The appellate court reversed and remanded both decisions, finding that the Commission abused its discretion in dismissing the ineligibility appeal as untimely due to good cause, and that the overpayment appeal could not be decided before the underlying eligibility issue.

Claimant Catisha Harden appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision affirming an Appeals Tribunal's ruling that she did not timely appeal a deputy's determination denying unemployment benefits. The Appeals Tribunal found no good cause to extend the statutory time limit for her late appeal, a decision adopted by the Commission. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding that its finding of no good cause was supported by substantial and competent evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.

William Ferguson appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which affirmed the dismissal of his administrative appeal as untimely. Ferguson's appellate brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04, lacking Points Relied On, an Argument section, and citations to legal authority. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that such significant briefing deficiencies preserved no issues for review, even for pro se appellants.

Latanya Townsend appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits. The Division of Employment Security maintained Townsend voluntarily quit her job without good cause. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that Townsend's pro se brief failed to substantially comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04, thereby preserving nothing for review.

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.

Lee Kouadio-Tobey appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which had affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's finding that Kouadio-Tobey's appeal from a denial of unemployment benefits was untimely. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, concluding that Kouadio-Tobey's brief materially violated Rule 84.04, thereby preserving no issues for review. The court found deficiencies in the statement of facts, points relied on, and argument section.

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.

Samantha J. Freeland appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits, arguing she left her employment for good cause. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. The court found that Freeland's brief contained significant deficiencies, including a non-compliant statement of facts, point relied on, argument, and conclusion, which prevented the court from conducting a meaningful review of the claimed error.

Evan J. Garey appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, which denied his application for review of the Appeals Tribunal's finding that he was disqualified from unemployment benefits due to misconduct. Garey's initial appellate brief was struck for non-compliance with Rule 84.04, and his amended brief also failed to meet the briefing requirements. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the deficiencies in Garey's brief prevented proper review.

Fedra Ekres appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which found she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she voluntarily quit her employment without good cause. Ekres, an immunocompromised customer service representative, moved to New York to work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic after her employer, Franklin Energy Services, LLC, instructed all St. Louis call center employees to work remotely. The Commission concluded Ekres voluntarily quit because she could no longer meet a condition of employment requiring her to be associated with a St. Louis office. The appellate court reversed, finding no substantial or competent evidence supported the Commission's conclusion that Ekres voluntarily quit, as her remote work from New York during the pandemic did not violate any known policy or contract, and she was not given an opportunity to return to St. Louis.

Kaleaha Rayner appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's dismissal of her application for review as untimely. Rayner contended she had timely mailed an application that the Commission claimed not to have received, and later sent a second application. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the Commission erred by not making findings of fact regarding Rayner's assertion of a timely mailed application, which, if proven, would be deemed filed under the statutory mailbox rule.

417 Pet Sitting, LLC appealed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which determined that its pet caretakers were employees, not independent contractors, for unemployment insurance purposes. The Commission applied the common law right to control test, considering 20 IRS factors, and found an employer-employee relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding that competent and substantial evidence supported the finding that the sitters were employees.

Christopher Blackman appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision to dismiss his claim for unemployment benefits, which the Commission had dismissed for untimeliness. On appeal, Blackman argued the Commission erred in finding him disqualified for benefits based on voluntary resignation, rather than challenging the Commission's jurisdictional dismissal. The appellate court dismissed Blackman's appeal, holding that he failed to properly raise an appealable issue by not challenging the Commission's actual ruling.

Meana Ward appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decisions regarding her unemployment benefits. The Commission had dismissed two of her appeals as untimely and affirmed an overpayment assessment. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's dismissal of the untimely appeals, holding that the Commission lacked statutory authority to review them. The court dismissed Ward's appeal of the overpayment assessment, finding that she had abandoned the claim of error due to briefing deficiencies.

Mark Wayne was denied unemployment benefits by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission after being terminated for poor job performance by Estes Express Lines. The Commission found Wayne ineligible due to misconduct, relying on Estes's general rule against "poor performance." The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that a broad "poor performance" rule does not constitute disqualifying misconduct under Missouri law and that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of insubordination, the employer's stated reason for termination.

Donzell Walker appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision dismissing his claim for unemployment benefits due to his failure to participate in a hearing. The Commission found Walker did not demonstrate good cause for his absence. The appellate court dismissed Walker's appeal, holding that he failed to properly challenge the Commission's good cause ruling and did not comply with mandatory Rule 84.04 briefing requirements, thereby abandoning the issue on appeal.

Ms. Katherine Valley appealed a divided ruling by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which reversed an award of unemployment compensation benefits after her termination for alleged misconduct. The Commission found Ms. Valley committed misconduct by repeatedly disrespecting coworkers and creating conflict. The appellate court reversed, finding the employer failed to present competent and substantial evidence that Ms. Valley violated a known workplace rule or knowingly disregarded the employer's interests by inquiring about a vacation payout policy. The case was remanded for calculation and award of benefits.

CPR Plus, LLC appealed a decision by the Missouri Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which found that its instructors were employees rather than independent contractors for unemployment benefits purposes. CPR Plus contended that there was no competent and substantial evidence in the record to support this determination. The appellate court affirmed the Commission's decision, concluding that the record supported the finding that CPR Plus maintained control over the manner and means of the instructors' performance, thereby establishing an employer-employee relationship under the common law of agency right to control test.

Marjorie Richardson appealed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her unemployment benefits. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because Richardson's notice of appeal failed to specify the decision sought to be reviewed, and her brief did not challenge the Commission's decision but rather a separate civil case. Additionally, her brief substantially failed to comply with mandatory appellate briefing requirements, including the absence of points relied on and a proper argument section, thus preserving nothing for review.