563 S.W.3d 816
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Sharon Hickman, a deputy circuit clerk since 2011, was transferred from Support to the Traffic Division in July 2015 after a change in staffing needs.
- Hickman received favorable performance reviews before the transfer; after transfer she struggled with unfamiliar software and duties and received limited formal training (primarily shadowing a coworker and informal notes).
- Hickman reported carpal tunnel symptoms, was placed on light duty (limited typing), and took steps to self-train (notes, videos, attempts to enroll in OSCA training) but received little supervisory guidance.
- She received a vague corrective action letter in September 2015 and was dismissed by Clerk Michael Reuter in October 2015 for poor performance.
- Hickman exhausted internal administrative appeals: pre-termination hearing, appeal to Presiding Judge, Dismissal Review Committee (DRC) hearings, and CCBC adoption of the DRC decision ordering reinstatement; Reuter sought judicial review in Cole County circuit court which reversed the CCBC.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the CCBC (final agency) decision and reversed the circuit court, reinstating Hickman based on competent and substantial evidence supporting the CCBC/DRC findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was "for just cause" under SCOR 7.B.11 | Hickman: dismissal lacked just cause because training was inadequate, corrective action was non-specific, and disability effects were not considered | Reuter: dismissal supported by competent & substantial evidence of poor performance | Court: CCBC/DRC findings supported; dismissal not for just cause; reinstatement affirmed |
| Proper standard and scope of appellate review of administrative decision | Hickman: appellate court should review CCBC decision for substantial evidence and legality | Reuter: emphasized deference to appointing authority's factual determinations | Court: reviews agency (CCBC) decision, considers whole record, affords deference where record permits opposing findings; upheld CCBC |
| Whether corrective action complied with SCOR 7.B.12.5 (must advise corrective actions in writing) | Hickman: corrective action letter failed to provide specific goals, plan, or measurable steps | Reuter: letter and prior reviews constituted sufficient notice of deficiencies | Court: corrective action was insufficient under SCOR 7.B.12.5—too vague, no specific plan |
| Whether employer considered employee’s medical condition/disability in disciplinary process | Hickman: employer failed to assess effects of carpal tunnel and medication on learning/performance | Reuter: acknowledged light duty but claimed no knowledge of extent/medication effects | Court: CCBC found employer failed to consider disability effects beyond light duty; this supported finding of no just cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Ringer v. Mo. Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 306 S.W.3d 113 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (appellate review is of agency decision, not trial court judgment)
- Coffer v. Wasson-Hunt, 281 S.W.3d 308 (Mo. banc 2009) (deference where record permits opposing findings)
- State ex rel. Evans v. Brown Builders Elec. Co., 254 S.W.3d 31 (Mo. banc 2008) (rule interpretation reviewed de novo; interpret rules in context)
- Lake Ozark-Osage Beach Joint Sewer Bd. v. Mo. Dep't of Nat. Res., 491 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (must consider entire record, not just evidence supporting agency)
- In re Trenton Farms RE, LLC v. Mo. Dep't of Nat. Res., 504 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (agency construction of rules entitled to great weight)
- Jefferson City Apothecary, LLC v. Mo. Bd. of Pharmacy, 499 S.W.3d 321 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (deference on credibility and weight of testimony)
- Kerwin v. Mo. Dental Bd., 375 S.W.3d 219 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (deference to agency on witness credibility)
- Atwell v. Fitzsimmons, 452 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (appellate practice notes: review agency decision but mandate acts on trial court judgment)