State ex rel. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, Division of Welfare v. Luster
| Decision Date | 01 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25376,25376 |
| Citation | 456 S.W.2d 600 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, DIVISION OF WELFARE, Appellant, v. Nancy T. LUSTER, Formerly Nancy T. O'Neal, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
We have here a suit, based upon a written contract, to recover a money judgment for an alleged breach of the contract. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.
Many of the facts are not in dispute. On January 3, 1966, the defendant as Nancy T. O'Neal, nee Cox (now Nancy T. Luster by reason of a second marriage) was appointed a case worker in the Jackson County, Missouri welfare office. Mrs. O'Neal at that time was a high school graduate and had been awarded a degree in psychology by the Central Missouri State College at Warrensburg. She and her husband were employed for a time at the McCune Home for Boys in Independence, Missouri. She took a two-weeks training course in the Kansas City welfare office and then was assigned to the Independence office where she worked until September 1, 1966. Her beginning salary was $407.00 per month. This was increased to $427.00 on July 1st and to $448.00 five days later.
Soon after coming to work for the plaintiff (State of Missouri, Department of Public Health and Welfare, Division of Welfare), the defendant heard about 'Educational Leave', a three-year program which was about to end, under which some few selected employees might attend school and still be continued on the welfare employee payroll. She was understandably interested in such a program and in its prospects. She contacted her supervisors, confided to them her wish to further her education under this program, and sought their support for an appointment. She was apparently highly regarded by the director, the assistant directors, the supervisors and the foremen--as witness her two salary increases
within six days on July 1st and July 6, 1966. She was of the chosen few, and was selected for one of the 'Educational Leave Assignments'. A written contract, out of which this suit arises, and embodying the terms of this educational subsidy, was entered into on May 16, 1966. We set out that contract in its entirety:
'MISSOURI DIVISION OF WELFARE
EDUCATIONAL LEAVE AGREEMENT
' An educational Leave Salary in the amount of $407.00 per month has been approved for Mrs. Nancy Theresa O' Neal to attend Missouri University-Kansas City for one calendar year. This will be effective from the beginning of the school term September month 1966 year.
April 21, 1966
Date
/s/ Proctor N. Carter
Signature of the Director
In accepting an educational leave salary from the Missouri Division of Welfare, I understand that the Division is trying to strengthen and improve services to clients served by the agency.
'I therefore agree to:
1. Work for a period of two calendar years for one calendar year spent on educational leave at the University of Missouri School of Social Work and Community Development Experimental Program in Kansas City, Missouri.
2. Work for a period of one calendar year for each semester spent on educational leave at any other college or university.
3. The Missouri Division of Welfare securing progress reports from the school I attend.
4. Accept assignment to a position and location as determined by the agency.
I agree to repay the educational leave salary and other financial aid provided, if I fail to live up to the agreement.
5--16--66
Date
Filed June 14, 1968'
/s/ Nancy T. O'Neal
Signature of Applicant'
Some doubt existed in the minds of this Court as to the authority of the Director of Welfare to enter into such an agreement for and on behalf of the State of Missouri. His representatives in court stated that they knew of no specific or statutory authority but assured the Court it was common practice, and that the issue had not been raised in this lawsuit. We therefore do not inquire further into the matter. We are also solemnly informed that this 'Educational Leave Program' was not created primarily for the benefit of the trainees but rather because a 'critical shortage of social workers' has come about, and it was believed that if a large number of social workers with master's degrees could be secured it would greatly enhance the overall well-being of the welfare society. The question arises--Should government pay more than twice as many dollars per month to educate social workers as it pays to GIs for educational training, even though the GIs may have already served their country in a rather dangerous capacity for one, two or three years?
In any event, Mrs. O'Neal (Luster) started to school on September 1, 1966, and continued until September 1, 1967. During this period she was paid a stipend of $407.00 per month, or a total of $4884.00. Her tuition in the sum of $560.00 was also paid by the plaintiff. As a result of this educational leave training, Mrs. Luster received her Master's Degree. After a three-weeks vacation, she resumed her work for plaintiff in the Kansas City office with a salary of $572.00 per month. She continued this employment for six months and until her resignation on March 1, 1968.
By its petition plaintiff sought recovery from defendant of $4872.00 for breach of the contract. This figure represents the total salary ($4884.00) plus tuition ($560.00) paid to defendant, less her February, 1968 salary of $572.00, which had been withheld by the state. Plaintiff made no attempt to show any actual damage which it suffered because defendant failed to work for the two years agreed upon. Apparently plaintiff regards the contractual provision for a refund of educational leave salary as a sort of liquidated damage proviso. Probably that position is tenable but we need not here decide it.
Defendant answered, alleging her work for plaintiff after her educational leave was under 'such adverse, unreasonable and unprofessional conditions that defendant justifiably terminated her employment with plaintiff on March 1, 1968.' She also asserted a setoff in her favor for her February, 1968 salary, specifically denied plaintiff's right to recover income taxes and social security deductions which had been made from her salary during her year at school, and further denied that plaintiff could rightfully recover 75% of the total paid to her because that percentage had been paid from federal funds.
The court gave Instruction No. 3 which plaintiff claims was erroneous for not requiring a finding that plaintiff had breached the employment contract. The jury apparently found in accordance with this instruction and returned a nine-member verdict for defendant as follows:
'We, the undersigned jurors find that the defendant was justified in terminated her employment.'
Signed by 9 jurors.
On appeal plaintiff lists five assignments of error. It says it was (1) entitled to a summary judgment, (2) its motion for a directed verdict should have been sustained, (3) Instruction No. 3 was erroneously given, (4) Instruction No. 4 was improper, and (5) it was error to admit the testimony of Mrs. Valerie Baggerly.
The plaintiff, by responses to interrogatories and the testimony of Mr. H. F. Hallam, Chief of the Bureau of Administrative Services, State Division of Welfare, proved the employment and compensation of defendant by plaintiff from January 3, 1966 to March 1, 1968, as we have detailed the same herein.
To uphold her defense that the working conditions in her employment from September 1, 1967 to March 1, 1968, when she resigned, were 'so adverse, unreasonable and unprofessional' as to justify termination, defendant produced testimony which we now summarize. Defendant personally testified that her immediate supervisor Mrs. Euna Handy, barely spoke to her when she first reported for work, never gave her any instructions as to aid to dependent children work, to which area defendant had been assigned, said the office facilities were 'very poor' with desks 'lined up facing each other', that the lighting was poor, there was no air conditioning, it was noisy and overall very distracting; that she was required to take the two-weeks orientation course which she had taken two years earlier; that Mrs. Handy told her that her predecessor had 'skipped lunches and coffee breaks to keep her work load current' and defendant would be expected to do the same; that if she asked Mrs. Handy a question about her work she was told to 'look it up' for herself. Defendant said she was required to spend most of her time doing 'paper work', procuring filling out and filing various ADC forms; that when she protested to Mrs. Long, another supervisor, and to Mrs. Handy about this paper work and her assignment to ADC instead of to family social work, she was told 'if it was too demanding it would be better if I looked elsewhere for work.'
Mrs. Valerie Baggerly,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thienes v. Harlin Fruit Co.
...on the principal issue.' Charles F. Curry & Co. v. Hedrick, 378 S.W.2d 522, 536(18) (Mo.1964), State ex rel. State Dept. of Public Health & Welfare v. Luster, 456 S.W.2d 600, 604 (Mo.App.1970). Plaintiff's receipt of sundry decorations was not relevant per se, but the evidence pertaining to......
-
Vondras v. Titanium Research & Development Co.
...party. The employer also may recover his damages for breach of contract by the employee. See State ex rel. State Department of Public Health and Welfare v. Luster, 456 S.W.2d 600 (Mo.App.1970); Roth v. Speck, 126 A.2d 153 Nor do we concur with defendant's categorization of plaintiff's verdi......