Scheumbauer v. City of St. Louis, ED 109260

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: Thom C. Clark, Judge
• Citation: 633 S.W.3d 543
• Parties: Della SCHEUMBAUER, Claimant/Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Employer/Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. ED 109260,ED 109260
• Decision Date: 28 September 2021

633 S.W.3d 543

Della SCHEUMBAUER, Claimant/Appellant,
v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Employer/Respondent,
and
Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

No. ED 109260

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: September 28, 2021

Peter A. Heagney, 4625 Washington Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108, For Appellant.

City of St. Louis, Respondent Acting Pro Se.

Bart A. Matanic, PO Box 59, 421 E. Dunklin St., Jefferson City, MO 65104.

OPINION

Thom C. Clark, Judge

Della Scheumbauer (Appellant) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying her unemployment benefits after finding she was neither totally nor partially unemployed. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2019, Appellant began working 40 hours per week for the City of St. Louis (City). During this time, Appellant worked a second job at a dental office. As a result of CDC guidelines in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Appellant was furloughed at the dental office in March of 2020. Despite ending her employment at the dental office, Appellant continued to work at the City but never hid this fact from the Division of Employment Security (Division). On March 29, Appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Division, listing the dental office as her last employer. On March 31, the Division accepted Appellant's unemployment claim and began issuing Appellant unemployment payments.

On April 8, the City responded to a request for information from the Division, indicating Appellant was still employed as an active full-time employee and there had not been any changes in Appellant's work hours. In a statement obtained from Appellant by the Division on May 14, Appellant stated she filed for unemployment to recover the income from her employment at the dental office and did not realize the weekly reports were supposed to include her employment with the City. On May 15, a deputy for the Division determined Appellant was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was not unemployed.¹

Appellant appealed the deputy's determination to the Division's Appeals Tribunal. On June 25, the Appeals Tribunal held a hearing by telephone. Appearing on her behalf, Appellant's husband testified Appellant worked 40 hours per week for the City. On June 26, the Appeals Tribunal denied Appellant's appeal, finding Appellant was "not unemployed" and thus ineligible for benefits for the period from March 29 through May 9. The Appeals Tribunal reasoned Appellant was "fully

633 S.W.3d 545

employed" because she "was still working forty hours per week" at the City.

Appellant appealed the Appeal Tribunal's decision to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). On September 18, the Commission affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's decision, finding Appellant was neither totally nor partially unemployed from the City and therefore ineligible for benefits from March 29 through May 9. While the Commission noted Appellant's employment at the dental office was "not a relevant issue to this determination," it remanded the case to the Division's deputy to determine whether Appellant may be eligible for federal unemployment benefits considering she was laid off from her second job due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Point Relied On

In her sole point on appeal, Appellant claims the Commission erred in finding she was not entitled to unemployment benefits because the facts found by the Commission did not support its conclusion. Specifically, Appellant claims the Commission erred in determining the loss of Appellant's second job was irrelevant to its decision that Appellant was neither totally nor partially unemployed.

Standard of Review

On appeal, this court reviews the entire record to determine whether the Commission's findings of fact are supported by competent and substantial evidence. Knobbe v. Artco Casket Co., Inc., 315 S.W.3d 735, 739 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). We review questions of law, including the application of the law to the facts, de novo. Id. We will affirm the Commission's decision unless (1) the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the decision was procured by fraud; (3) the facts found by the Commission do not support the award; or (4) the record lacks sufficient competent evidence to support the award. Norath v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 490 S.W.3d 792, 794 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing § 288.210).² When there is no factual dispute and the issue is the construction and application of a statute, the case presents an issue of law that this court reviews de novo. Billings v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 399 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Mo. banc 2013) (quoting Difatta-Wheaton v. Dolphin Cap. Corp., 271 S.W.3d 594 (Mo. banc 2008) ).

Discussion

At its core, the issue before us is whether Appellant's 40-hour-per-week employment by the City constituted full-time employment and thus rendered Appellant neither totally nor partially unemployed, regardless of her employment status at the dental office.

The Missouri Employment Security Law, codified in Chapter 288 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, governs Appellant's claim and provides the applicable...