Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co., No. WD 76396.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | ANTHONY REX GABBERT |
| Citation | 423 S.W.3d 834 |
| Parties | Charles RADEMAN, Appellant, v. AL SCHEPPERS MOTOR COMPANY and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. WD 76396. |
| Decision Date | 04 March 2014 |
423 S.W.3d 834
Charles RADEMAN, Appellant,
v.
AL SCHEPPERS MOTOR COMPANY and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
No. WD 76396.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Western District.
March 4, 2014.
[423 S.W.3d 835]
Larry Raymond Ruhmann, Jane Christine Drummond, Jefferson City, for Respondents.
Charles Rademan, Jefferson City, Appellant Acting Pro Se.
[423 S.W.3d 836]
Before Division Three: ANTHONY REX GABBERT, P.J., VICTOR C. HOWARD, THOMAS H. NEWTON, JJ.
ANTHONY REX GABBERT, Judge.
Charles Rademan appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“Commission”) affirming the Appeals Tribunal's decision that Rademan was discharged by his employer for misconduct connected with work, thereby disqualifying him from unemployment benefits. Rademan raises one point on appeal. Rademan argues that the Commission erred in denying him unemployment benefits because the decision was not supported by competent and substantial evidence because he was not fired for misconduct but rather for refusing to sign the reprimand papers his employer wanted him to sign. We dismiss Rademan's appeal for failure to comply with Rule 84.04 and failure to include any legal authority supporting his claim.
Rademan was employed by Al Scheppers Motor Company (“Employer”) for many years, working at the parts desk. On October 11, 2012, Tina Sieg, Employer's Parts Manager, met with Rademan about three complaints made to the Employer by his co-workers. As a result of the complaints, Sieg presented two written reprimands to Rademan to review and sign. When Rademan was asked to sign the reprimands, he refused. Sieg said that he could sign the reprimands and indicate next to his signature that he was signing under protest. Rademan still refused to sign the reprimands. After multiple refusals to sign, Rademan was fired.
Rademan applied for unemployment benefits. The Division's deputy determined that Rademan was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The Employer appealed the decision to the Appeals Tribunal. The Appeals Tribunal reversed the deputy's determination, finding that Rademan was disqualified for misconduct connected with work and, therefore, disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Rademan appealed the Appeals Tribunal's decision to the Commission. The Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the Appeals Tribunal. Rademan appeals.
Before deciding the merits of Rademan's appeal, this Court must determine whether Rademan's brief substantially complies with the mandatory rules for appellate briefing under Rule 84.04. We first note that Rademan is before this Court pro se. Rademan is fully entitled to proceed pro se, but he is bound by the same rules of procedure as those represented by counsel. Moran v. Mason, 236 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Mo.App.2007). While this Court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hazeltine v. Second Injury Fund, No. ED 107630
...are incorrect. "Failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 is grounds for dismissal." Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co. , 423 S.W.3d 834, 835 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). However, "we prefer to dispose of a case on the merits whenever possible." Scott v. Potter Elec. Signa......
-
B.N.A. v. Ready, WD 83447
...this court to become an advocate to properly review his allegations of error, which we cannot do. Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co. , 423 S.W.3d 834, 836-37 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). "It is an appellant's obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent if [the appellant] expects to ......
-
Simmons v. McCulloch, No. ED 103304
...obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent if [the appellant] expects to prevail." Rademan v. Al Sche pp ers Motor Co., 423 S.W.3d 834, 837 (Mo.App.W.D. 2014).2 All further statutory references are to RSMo (2000), unless noted otherwise.3 Respondent did not personally prese......
-
B.A. v. Ready, WD 83895
...obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent if [the appellant] expects to prevail." Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co. , 423 S.W.3d 834, 837 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). For, it is not the role or function of this Court to assist either party in de......
-
Hazeltine v. Second Injury Fund, No. ED 107630
...are incorrect. "Failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 is grounds for dismissal." Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co. , 423 S.W.3d 834, 835 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). However, "we prefer to dispose of a case on the merits whenever possible." Scott v. Potter Elec. Signa......
-
B.N.A. v. Ready, WD 83447
...this court to become an advocate to properly review his allegations of error, which we cannot do. Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co. , 423 S.W.3d 834, 836-37 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). "It is an appellant's obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent if [the appellant] expects to ......
-
Simmons v. McCulloch, No. ED 103304
...obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent if [the appellant] expects to prevail." Rademan v. Al Sche pp ers Motor Co., 423 S.W.3d 834, 837 (Mo.App.W.D. 2014).2 All further statutory references are to RSMo (2000), unless noted otherwise.3 Respondent did not personally prese......
-
B.A. v. Ready, WD 83895
...obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent if [the appellant] expects to prevail." Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Co. , 423 S.W.3d 834, 837 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). For, it is not the role or function of this Court to assist either party in de......