Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.140

Letter of dismissal, when

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

290.140. Letter of dismissal, when — failure to issue, damages — punitive damages, limitations. — 1. Whenever any employee of any corporation doing business in this state and which employs seven or more employees, who shall have been in the service of said corporation for a period of at least ninety days, shall be discharged or voluntarily quit the service of such corporation and who thereafter within a reasonable period of time, but not later than one year following the date the employee was discharged or voluntarily quit, requests in writing by certified mail to the superintendent, manager or registered agent of said corporation, with specific reference to the statute, it shall be the duty of the superintendent or manager of said corporation to issue to such employee, within forty-five days after the receipt of such request, a letter, duly signed by such superintendent or manager, setting forth the nature and character of service rendered by such employee to such corporation and the duration thereof, and truly stating for what cause, if any, such employee was discharged or voluntarily quit such service.

2. Any corporation which violates the provisions of subsection 1 of this section shall be liable for compensatory but not punitive damages but in the event that the evidence establishes that the employer did not issue the requested letter, said employer may be liable for nominal and punitive damages; but no award of punitive damages under this section shall be based upon the content of any such letter.

--------

(RSMo 1939 § 5064, A.L. 1941 p. 330, A.L. 1982 S.B. 747)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 4588; 1919 § 9780; 1909 § 3020

CROSS REFERENCE:

Employee dismissal rights, damage action, time limitation, 516.140

(1985) Actual damages in a "service letter" case are proven by showing that the plaintiff was refused employment or hindered in obtaining employment, due to the absence or inadequacy of a service letter, that the position plaintiff was refused or hindered in obtaining was actually open, and the rate of pay of that position. Gibson v. Hummel (Mo. App. E.D.), 688 S.W.2d 4.

(1985) An award of punitive damages based on the failure to provide a service letter is improper except upon a showing of actual or legal malice. Comerio v. Beatrice Foods Co., 616 F.Supp. 1423 (D.C.Mo.).

(1986) An employer which fails to issue the service letter within forty-five days of it being requested may be liable for punitive damages. Talbert v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 651 F.Supp. 1563 (W.D. Mo.).

1986) A statement that termination is due to "unsatisfactory work performance" is insufficient as a matter of law under this section. Gloria v. University of Health Sciences, 713 S.W.2d 32 (Mo. App. W.D.).

(1987) Legal malice must be proven in order to recover punitive damages pursuant to this section and such malice must be averred generally in the petition. Willett v. Slay Warehouse Co., Inc., 735 S.W.2d 60 (Mo. App. E.D.).

(1987) Legal malice or the deliberate failure to provide a service letter knowing that an individual has requested one perhaps may be shown in order to recover punitive damages by proving that this section was cited in the request for a service letter. Fink v. Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc., 666 F.Supp. 1325 (W.D. Mo.).

(1990) Letter requesting statement of reasons for employee's discharge signed only by the employee's attorney and not by the employee is not a valid request for a service letter. Zeman v. V.F. Factory Outlet, Inc., 911 F.2d 107 (8th Cir.).

(1990) Discharged employee not entitled to actual damages for an employer's violation of service letter statute for false statements unless employee can show evidence that prospective employer saw letter and held it against employee. Employee could seek nominal damages. Prewitt v. Factory Motor Parts, Inc., 747 F.Supp. 560 (W.D. Mo.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 170 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc. (1985) moctapp · cites it 28× “On appeal, defendants Vista and Baker present three points: First, that in submitting *863 the issue of punitive damages to the jury the trial court erred because the amendment to § 290.140 enacted August 13, 1982, is retroactive in application and bars plaintiff's recovery of…”

Ball v. American Greetings Corp. (1988) moctapp · cites it 37× “Count I alleged that defendant failed to issue a service letter to the plaintiff within a reasonable time in breach of § 290.140, RSMo 1978, and sought actual and punitive damages.”

Stark v. American Bakeries Co. (1983) mo · cites it 24× “Plaintiff initiated this action against his former employer for alleged noncompliance with the service letter statute, § 290.140, RSMo 1969. The jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict for $1.”

Herberholt v. dePaul Community Health Center (1981) mo · cites it 16× “02, the Eastern District of the Court of Appeals transferred the within cause to this Court that it might consider, again, the constitutionality of the so-called "service letter statute" (§ 290.140, RSMo 1978). [1] The appeal by plaintiff, now appellant, is from the trial…”

Vaughan v. Taft Broadcasting Co. (1986) mo · cites it 10× “Plaintiff, Joe Vaughan, sued Taft Broadcasting Company, owner of WDAF radio station, alleging violation of the service letter statute, section 290.140, RSMo 1978. The jury awarded plaintiff $1.”

Shqeir v. Equifax, Inc. (1982) mo · cites it 12× “118 to the service letter statute, § 290.140, and bring their situation under the aegis of Cheek v.”

Hanch v. K. F. C. National Management Corp. (1981) mo · cites it 10× “In my view, punitive damages may not be recovered by a former employee under the authority of § 290.140, RSMo 1978. The purported justification for the allowance of punitive damages is to punish a defendant and thereby deter it and others from subsequent malfeasance.”

Labrier v. Anheuser Ford, Inc. (1981) mo · cites it 8× “" § 290.140, RSMo 1978. Thus, if an employee meets the statutory prerequisites to be entitled to a service letter, he has a cause of action if the corporation fails to issue the letter or issues a letter not conforming to all the statutory requirements.”

Arie v. Intertherm, Inc. (1983) moctapp · cites it 7× “That on or about May 10, 1978, Intertherm discharged her and pursuant to § 290.140 RSMo. she, on or about June 13, 1978, requested a service letter; that on or about June 30, 1978, Intertherm furnished her a service letter wherein it was stated, “You were terminated May 10,…”

Hills v. McComas Rentals, Inc. (1989) moctapp · cites it 17× “Hills, plaintiff, brought an action for damages against McComas Rentals for failure to supply a service letter pursuant to § 290.140, RSMo 1986. The trial judge in this court tried case found for defendant, McComas Rentals.”

State Ex Rel. BP Products North America Inc. v. Ross (2005) mo · cites it 5× “140 enumerates claims that must be brought “[wjithin two years: [a]n action for libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, criminal conversation, malicious prosecution or actions brought under section 290.140, RSMo.” Section 516.120 provides that a five-year statute…”

Krasney v. Curators of the University of Missouri (1989) moctapp · cites it 10× “Count II alleged in addition that the plaintiff submitted a written request to the Curators to provide her a service letter, but that the Curators — in violation of § 290.140, RSMo 1986, submitted a response which failed to state the true reason why she was discharged.”

Show all 170 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.140(1) — 1 case

Hills v. McComas Rentals, Inc. (1989) moctapp “Hills, plaintiff, brought an action for damages against McComas Rentals for failure to supply a service letter pursuant to § 290.140, RSMo 1986. The trial judge in this court tried case found for defendant, McComas Rentals.”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.140(2) — 2 cases

Vaughan v. Taft Broadcasting Co. (1986) mo “Plaintiff, Joe Vaughan, sued Taft Broadcasting Company, owner of WDAF radio station, alleging violation of the service letter statute, section 290.140, RSMo 1978. The jury awarded plaintiff $1.”

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.