Stahl v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLC
489 S.W.3d 338
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Stahl, an assistant baker at Hank’s, struck co-worker Jones on the buttocks after he made a vulgar remark; the incident lasted only seconds and caused no reported injury.
- Hank’s fired Stahl the next day for physically hitting Jones and for allegedly lying about the incident.
- Stahl applied for unemployment benefits; a Division deputy and Appeals Tribunal found she was not disqualified for misconduct. The Labor & Industrial Relations Commission affirmed.
- Hank’s appealed, arguing intentional striking of a co-worker is misconduct disqualifying Stahl from benefits.
- The Commission and appellate court weighed credibility, found Stahl’s version more credible (a quick backhand with a hand, not a pan), and concluded the conduct did not amount to disqualifying misconduct under Missouri law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hank’s) | Defendant's Argument (Stahl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether intentionally striking a co-worker on company time and premises is per se misconduct disqualifying unemployment benefits | Any intentional physical strike of a co-worker demonstrates a knowing disregard of employer’s interests/standards and therefore is misconduct | The strike was a brief, nonviolent, heat-of-the-moment response to a vulgar provocation; no employer rule prohibited such conduct and it did not show knowing disregard of employer’s standards | Not per se misconduct; must assess totality of circumstances. Stahl’s brief backhand did not rise to disqualifying misconduct under §288.030.1(23)(a) |
| Whether absence of a written rule on physical contact affects analysis | Employer need not have written rule; deliberate striking is inherently violative of employer expectations | Absence of an express rule requires examining context and employee’s knowledge of standards; employer bears burden to prove misconduct | Absence of an express rule means review under the general statutory standard; context matters and Court declined to adopt a bright-line rule |
| Whether provocation excuses or mitigates misconduct | Provocation does not automatically excuse violent acts; employer needs ability to prevent workplace assaults | Provocation and immediacy reduce culpability; act here was not violent and was impulsive | Provocation and immediacy are relevant; the short, non-injurious swat was not the kind of misconduct requiring denial of benefits |
| Standard of review and burden of proof on appeal | Employer bears burden to prove misconduct by preponderance; appellate review assesses whether Commission’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence | Same; Commission credited Stahl’s testimony and factual findings control absent legal error | Commission’s factual findings were supported by competent substantial evidence; whether conduct constituted misconduct is a legal question, but Court upheld Commission’s application of law to facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003) (standard for reviewing whether award is supported by competent substantial evidence)
- Fendler v. Hudson Servs., 370 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. banc 2012) (whether claimant engaged in misconduct is a question of law)
- Seck v. Dep’t of Transp., 434 S.W.3d 74 (Mo. banc 2014) (employee misconduct may be found absent written rules where conduct disregards standards employer has right to expect)
- White v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 431 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (burden shifts to employer to prove misconduct)
- Tamko Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Pickard, 443 S.W.3d 68 (Mo. App. S.D. 2014) (misconduct determination depends on facts and circumstances)
- Richardson v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 361 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (fact-specific inquiry into whether conduct constitutes misconduct)