Section 4 Nominal and Punitive Damages

LibraryEmployer-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 (8th Cir. 1987). In addition to nonissuance of a service letter, a plaintiff must prove malice to meet the burden of proof for an award of punitive damages. Brooks v. Woodline Motor Freight, Inc., 852 F.2d 1061, 1067 (8th Cir. 1988); see Ruzicka v. Hart Printing Co., 21 S.W.3d 67, 76 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). A plaintiff may show legal malice by showing that the defendant did a wrongful act intentionally without just cause or excuse. See Schilligo, 824 F.2d at 663.

In Ryburn v. General Heating & Cooling, Co., 887 S.W.2d 604, 606
(Mo. App. W.D. 1994), the court affirmed a jury verdict awarding
$1 in nominal damages and $47,500 in punitive damages when the service letter issued omitted the reason for termination. The court determined that the failure to provide a reason for discharge was equivalent to the nonissuance of the letter. Id. at 607. The court further concluded that this deficiency was sufficient to support a finding that the failure to supply the service letter was the product of a wanton mental state. Id. at 609...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT