Section 7 Content

• Library: Personnel Hearings 2011

Notice of the proposed disciplinary action should adequately inform the employee of the facts that serve as the reason for discipline to allow the individual a meaningful opportunity to respond and to prepare for the hearing. If the notice fails to meet this test, the employer cannot present evidence of those facts at the hearing. Brixey v. Pers. Advisory Bd., 607 S.W.2d 825, 826–27 (Mo. App. S.D. 1980). Also, the notice does not need to set forth the reasons why the disciplinary action was for the good of the service. Seabaugh v. Cassell, 998 S.W.2d 593, 596 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999).

In certain circumstances, a notice letter can put the employee’s entire employment history at issue. In Medvik v. Ollendorff,
772 S.W.2d 696 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989), the letter described the 1985 incident on which the dismissal was based. It also stated that the employee had been guilty of a 1983 incident of similar nature and had been warned then that further misconduct could result in review of his employment status and possible dismissal. The court held that this was ample warning that the 1983 incident, as well as 1981 and 1980 incidents, could be introduced at the hearing to support the dismissal. Id. at 698–99.

In Smith v. Rosa, 73 S.W.3d 862 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002), the court dealt with a notice that set forth two reasons for a 30-day suspension of Rosa as a supervisory employee:

1. She willingly violated agency policy.

2. She was incompetent, careless, or inefficient in the performance of her supervisory duties.

First, the court held that the notice was inadequate to inform Rosa of how she...