36.380. Dismissal of employee — notice. — An appointing authority may dismiss for cause any regular employee in his or her division when he or she considers that such action is required in the interests of efficient administration and that the good of the service will be served thereby. No dismissal of a regular employee shall take effect unless, prior to the effective date thereof, the appointing authority gives to such employee a written statement notifying the employee of the decision and setting forth in substance the reason therefor. When it is not practicable to give the notice of dismissal to an employee in person, it may be sent to the employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, at his or her last mailing address as shown in the personnel records of the appointing authority. Proof of refusal of the employee to accept delivery or the inability of postal authorities to deliver such mail shall be accepted as evidence that the required notice of dismissal has been given. Any regular employee who is dismissed shall have the right to appeal to the administrative hearing commission as provided under section 36.390.
Notes of Decisions
Bowen v. Missouri Dep't of Conservation, 46 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 18× “Bowen the other rights accorded merit employees under other statutes, such as the right of merit employees to a pre-termination written notice of reasons for his or her discharge under Section 36.380 RSMo 1994. We further reject Mr.”
Wolf v. Missouri State Training Sch. for Boys, 517 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. 1974).
· cites it 19× “Resolution of this question turns on whether respondent was given the notice of dismissal required by § 36.380 [2] which, after authorizing dismissal for cause of merit system employees, provides in part as follows: "No dismissal of a regular employee shall take effect unless,…”
Mills v. Fed. Soldiers Home of Missouri, 549 S.W.2d 862 (Mo. 1977).
· cites it 13× “” Respondent filed a memorandum in circuit court in support of his petition for review in which it was stated that, “Plaintiff’s only complaint is that he was not given lawful notice of dismissal as required by Section 36.380 RSMo 1969.” No additional testimony was taken in…”
Lombardi v. Dunlap, 103 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “390.5, RSMo 2000, permits an appeal to be taken to the PAB by an employee “claiming that the dismissal .”
Prenger v. Moody, 845 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Section 36.380 states that “An appointing authority may dismiss for cause any employee in his division occupying a position subject hereto when he considers that such action is required in the interests of efficient administration and that the good of the service will be served…”
Mariann Atwell v. James Fitzsimmons, 452 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “The MDOC operates the subsidiary division that employed Fitzsim-mons, rendering Fitzsimmons a merit employee; Pursuant to section 36.380, !“[a]n appointing authority may dismiss for cause any employee in his division occupying a position subject hereto when he considers that…”
Anderson v. Pers. Advisory Bd., 586 S.W.2d 738 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 8× “In this court, the parties join issue on whether or not appellant was dismissed by an “appointing authority,” within the meaning of Section 36.380, RSMo 1978, which provides, in part: “An appointing authority may dismiss for cause any employee in his division occupying a…”
Missouri Dep't of Corr. v. Cheeney, 926 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “Section 36.380, RSMo 1994, authorizes dismissal for cause of any employee by an appointing authority “when [the authority] considers that such action is required in the interest of efficient administration and that the good of the service will be served thereby.”
Holt v. Pers. Advisory Bd. of State, 679 S.W.2d 340 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 5× “2 Needless to say, appellant was removed from the state payroll as of December 1, 1981, without any semblance of compliance with § 36.380, RSMo 1978, 3 by the appointing authority.”
Henry v. Missouri Dep't of Mental Health, 351 S.W.3d 707 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “” § 36.380, RSMo 2000; 1 CSR 20-3.070(5). 2 “Although not defined by the statutes, the standard ‘for the good of the service’ implies some personal misconduct or fact that renders the employee’s further employment harmful to the public interest.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 36.380(5) — 1 case
Bowen v. Missouri Dep't of Conservation, 46 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Bowen the other rights accorded merit employees under other statutes, such as the right of merit employees to a pre-termination written notice of reasons for his or her discharge under Section 36.380 RSMo 1994. We further reject Mr.”
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.