36.390. Right of appeal, procedure, regulation — dismissal appeal procedure. — 1. Any applicant for a position subject to this chapter pursuant to subsection 1 of section 36.030 who feels that he or she has not been dealt with fairly in any phase of the examination process may request that the director review his or her case. Such request for review of any examination shall be filed in writing with the director within fifteen days after the date on which notification of the results of the examination was sent to the applicant. A candidate may appeal the decision of the director in writing to the administrative hearing commission. This appeal shall be filed with the administrative hearing commission within fifteen days after date on which notification of the decision of the director was sent to the applicant. The commission's decision with respect to any changes shall be final, and shall be entered in the minutes.
2. Any regular employee who is dismissed or involuntarily demoted for cause or suspended for more than five working days may appeal in writing to the administrative hearing commission within thirty days after the effective date thereof, setting forth in substance the employee's reasons for claiming that the dismissal, suspension or demotion was for political, religious, or racial reasons, or not for the good of the service.
3. Hearings under subsection 2 of this section shall be deemed to be a contested case and the procedures applicable to the processing of such hearings and determinations shall be those established by chapter 536. Decisions of the administrative hearing commission shall be final and binding subject to appeal by either party. Final decisions of the administrative hearing commission pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to review on the record by the circuit court pursuant to chapter 536.
Notes of Decisions
Bowen v. Missouri Dep't of Conservation, 46 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 59× “He argues that MDOC erred in terminating his employment because Section 36.390 RSMo Supp.1996 and the MDOC termination procedure adopted in compliance therewith required that his termination be found to be “for the good of the service,” which he says is equivalent to a…”
Laws v. Sec'y of State, 895 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 56× “We find that the Secretary is subject to the requirements of section 36.390, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Andresen v. Bd. of Regents, 58 S.W.3d 581 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 7× “[36] The relevant section under Chapter 36 addressed in Laws , § 36.390, contained a provision that directed us to refer to Chapter 536.”
Green v. City of St. Louis, 870 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. 1994).
· cites it 4× “By analogy, a review of § 36.390, RSMo 1986, and chapter 213 makes clear that in the case of employment discrimination the legislature intended to allow separate remedies.”
Div. of Fam. Servs. v. Cade, 939 S.W.2d 546 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Any regular employee who is suspended more than five (5) workdays may appeal in writing to the board within thirty (30) days after the effective date thereof setting forth in substance reasons for claiming the suspension was for political, religious or racial reasons or not for…”
State ex rel. Donelon v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 971 S.W.2d 869 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 9× “Donelon appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his request for a writ of mandamus, wherein Appellant alleged the Department of Employment Security (DES) failed to provide the constitutionally required procedural due process with regard to a three-day suspension he…”
Asbury v. Lombardi, 846 S.W.2d 196 (Mo. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The subsection then provides that: Decisions of the personnel advisory board shall be final and binding subject to appeal by either party.”
Michael Cash v. Missouri Dep't of Revenue Scott Leary, Adm'r, 461 S.W.3d 57 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 7× “Section 36.390, RSMo provides: 6. The provisions for appeals provided in subsection 5 of this section for dismissals of regular merit employees may be adopted by nonmerit agencies of the state for any or all employees of such agencies.”
Wolf v. Missouri State Training Sch. for Boys, 517 S.W.2d 138 (Mo. 1974).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to § 36.390, respondent appealed his dismissal to the Personnel Advisory Board, contending that he had not been given a notice of dismissal in compliance with § 36.”
Snyder v. Dep't of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 952 S.W.2d 764 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 8× “In its first point on appeal, the Department asserts that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s decision.”
McGhee v. Dixon, 973 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. 1998).
· cites it 4× “The new law comprehensively defines agency proceedings, prevailing parties, reasonable fees and expenses, and the procedures to pursue a claim.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 36.390(5) — 13 cases
Bowen v. Missouri Dep't of Conservation, 46 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“He argues that MDOC erred in terminating his employment because Section 36.390 RSMo Supp.1996 and the MDOC termination procedure adopted in compliance therewith required that his termination be found to be “for the good of the service,” which he says is equivalent to a…”
Laws v. Sec'y of State, 895 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
“We find that the Secretary is subject to the requirements of section 36.390, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Green v. City of St. Louis, 870 S.W.2d 794 (Mo. 1994).
“By analogy, a review of § 36.390, RSMo 1986, and chapter 213 makes clear that in the case of employment discrimination the legislature intended to allow separate remedies.”
Div. of Fam. Servs. v. Cade, 939 S.W.2d 546 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
“Any regular employee who is suspended more than five (5) workdays may appeal in writing to the board within thirty (30) days after the effective date thereof setting forth in substance reasons for claiming the suspension was for political, religious or racial reasons or not for…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 36.390(5)(1) — 2 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 36.390(6) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 36.390(7) — 2 cases
Bowen v. Missouri Dep't of Conservation, 46 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“He argues that MDOC erred in terminating his employment because Section 36.390 RSMo Supp.1996 and the MDOC termination procedure adopted in compliance therewith required that his termination be found to be “for the good of the service,” which he says is equivalent to a…”
Laws v. Sec'y of State, 895 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
“We find that the Secretary is subject to the requirements of section 36.390, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 36.390(8) — 3 cases
Laws v. Sec'y of State, 895 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
“We find that the Secretary is subject to the requirements of section 36.390, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Bowen v. Missouri Dep't of Conservation, 46 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“He argues that MDOC erred in terminating his employment because Section 36.390 RSMo Supp.1996 and the MDOC termination procedure adopted in compliance therewith required that his termination be found to be “for the good of the service,” which he says is equivalent to a…”
Andresen v. Bd. of Regents, 58 S.W.3d 581 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“[36] The relevant section under Chapter 36 addressed in Laws , § 36.390, contained a provision that directed us to refer to Chapter 536.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 36.390(9) — 3 cases
McGhee v. Dixon, 973 S.W.2d 847 (Mo. 1998).
“The new law comprehensively defines agency proceedings, prevailing parties, reasonable fees and expenses, and the procedures to pursue a claim.”
Laws v. Sec'y of State, 895 S.W.2d 43 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
“We find that the Secretary is subject to the requirements of section 36.390, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
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.