Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 288
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.250 (2026)

Records confidential

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  288.250.  Records confidential — privileged communications — violation, penalty. — 1.  Information obtained from any employing unit or individual pursuant to the administration of this law shall be held confidential and shall not be published, further disclosed, or be open to public inspection in any manner revealing the individual's or employing unit's identity, but any claimant or employing unit or their authorized representative shall be supplied with information from the division's records to the extent necessary for the proper preparation and presentation of any claim for unemployment compensation benefits or protest of employer liability.  Further, upon receipt of a written request from a claimant or his or her authorized representative, the division shall supply information previously submitted to the division by the claimant, the claimant's wage history and the claimant's benefit payment history.  In addition, upon receipt of a written request from an authorized representative of an employing unit, the division shall supply information previously submitted to the division by the employing unit, and information concerning the payment of benefits from the employer's account and the unemployment compensation fund, including amounts paid to specific claimants.  A state or federal official or agency may receive disclosures to the extent required by federal law.  In the division's discretion, any other party may receive disclosures to the extent authorized by state and federal law.  Any information obtained by the division in the administration of this law shall be privileged and no individual or type of organization shall be held liable for slander or libel on account of any such information.

  2.  Any person who intentionally discloses or otherwise fails to protect confidential information in violation of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.  For a second or subsequent violation, the person shall be guilty of a class E felony.

­­--------

(L. 1951 p. 564 § 288.190, A.L. 1979 S.B. 477, A.L. 1997 S.B. 361, A.L. 2008 H.B. 2041, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)

Effective 1-01-17

(1980) Language referring to "a way of strict necessity" must refer to a standard determining the necessity for widening in order to give the language any meaning. Reed v. Jones (A.), 594 S.W.2d 339.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Tucker v. Delmar Cleaners, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tucker v. Delmar Cleaners, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “The sending of the letter to the Division of Employment Security did not fulfill the publication requirement, because § 288.250 RSMo.1981 Supp. 1 provides that information obtained by the Division in the administration of the employment security law is privileged and may not be…”
Remington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 817 S.W.2d 571 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× ““Publication of this letter to the Missouri Division of Employment Security is absolutely privileged pursuant to § 288.250 RSMo 1986 which provides ‘any information obtained by the Division in the administration of this law shall be privileged and no individual or type of…”
Washington v. Thomas, 778 S.W.2d 792 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “” Publication of this letter to the Missouri Division of Employment Security is absolutely privileged pursuant to § 288.250 RSMo.1986 which provides “any information obtained by the Division in the administration of this law shall be privileged and no individual or type of…”
State ex rel. Von Hoffman Press, Inc. v. Saitz, 604 S.W.2d 770 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 8× “The Director of Division of Employment Security does not disagree with Relator’s interpretation of the taxing statute but rather claims that § 288.250, RSMo 1969 1 mandates strict confidentiality of this type of information.”
Harper v. Stone Mountain Mfg. LLC (D. Kan. 2025). · cites it 5× “9 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.250 . 10 Fed. R. Evid.”
John Michel, Jr. v. Honeywell Int'l (8th Cir. 2026). “2025) (enforcing the 90-day deadline); and based his defamation claim on the company’s privileged statements to a state agency, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 288.250 (1) (codifying the privilege); Remington v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.