Section 29 Discharge for Misconduct

• Library: Employer-Employee Law 2008

Section 288.050.2, RSMo Supp. 2007, provides for the disqualification of a claimant who was discharged for misconduct connected with work. The claimant is disqualified for waiting week credit and benefits until the claimant has earned wages in insured work equal to 6 times the claimant’s weekly benefit amount. In cases of aggravated misconduct, the law provides for cancellation of all wage credits accrued through the claimant’s employment by the employer who discharged the claimant. In addition, if a claimant is disqualified on a second or subsequent occasion in the base period or after the base period, the claimant is required to earn wages in an amount equal to or in excess of 6 times the claimant’s weekly benefit amount for each disqualification. For instance, if a claimant is determined to have been discharged for misconduct by a base period employer and by the claimant’s last employer, the claimant will need to have earned wages equal to or in excess of 12 times the claimant’s weekly benefit amount to satisfy the disqualification.

The term “[m]isconduct” is defined by § 288.030.1(23), RSMo Supp. 2007, as:

an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer’s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his or her employee, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer.

This definition is nearly identical to the court’s definition in
Ritch v. Industrial Commission, 271 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Mo. App. W.D. 1955).

The following cases discuss whether a separation from work is a discharge for misconduct connected with work:

• Sain v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 564 S.W.2d 59 (Mo. App. E.D. 1978) (health insurance fraud was misconduct)

• Acord v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 607 S.W.2d 174 (Mo. App. S.D. 1980) (obscene remark to supervisor was misconduct)

• Francis Howell Sch. Dist. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, Div. of Employment Sec., 687 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985) (illegal strike was misconduct)

• Cont’l Research Corp. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n of Mo., 708 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (poor judgment by employee was not misconduct)

• Storz Instrument Co. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 723 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (threat...