Section 4 Nominal and Punitive Damages

• Library: Employer-Employee Law 2008

Missouri law provides for nominal and punitive damages if the evidence establishes that the employer did not issue the requested service letter. Section 290.140.2, RSMo 2000. Both the Western
and Eastern Districts of the Court of Appeals have ruled on this provision. The Western District has held that the failure to state a cause for discharge or supply a component of the requested service letter constitutes a refusal to issue a service letter. Ball v. Am. Greetings Corp., 752 S.W.2d 814, 821 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988).
A corporation that issued its service letter more than 45 days after receiving the employee’s proper request was subject to punitive damages for failing to comply with the service letter statute. See Talbert v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 1563 (W.D. Mo. 1987). Similarly, the Eastern District held that an employer fails to issue a service letter if the letter fails to include the requisite elements of § 290.140.1. Uhle v. Sachs Elec., 831 S.W.2d 774, 776 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992). Consequently, even when a requested service letter is sent by an employer, if it fails to satisfy a requisite element of the service letter statute, many courts have regarded the failure as nonissuance of the requested service letter.

Significantly, an employer’s mere failure to respond to a service letter request, by itself, is insufficient grounds to award punitive damages. Id. at 776; see also Schilligo v. Purolator Courier Corp., 824 F.2d 660,
664 (8^th Cir. 1987). In addition to nonissuance...