Court Opinion

ID: 9680229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:26:44.164887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:27.020096
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
As to the award of punitive damages, I dissent for the same reasons expressed in my dissent in Hanch v. K.F.C. National Management Corp., 615 S.W.2d 28, 37 (Mo. banc 1981).
I am compelled to make additional observations about the Service Letter Statute, § 290.140, RSMo 1978, which provides:
“Whenever any employee of any corporation doing business in this state shall be discharged or voluntarily quit the service of such corporation, it shall be the duty of the superintendent or manager of said corporation, upon the written request of such employee to him, if such employee shall have been in the service of said corporation for a period of at least ninety days, to issue to such employee 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 has quit such service; and if any such superintendent or manager shall fail or refuse to issue *627such letter to such employee when so requested by such employee, such superintendent or manager shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
I find nothing in § 290.140 which, expressly or by implication, creates a cause of action for damages. The statute neither imposes a duty on the corporation nor gives a right of action against it but imposes a duty upon the superintendent or manager and upon his (or her) failure to issue the requested letter makes him (or her) guilty of a misdemeanor.
On commentator has, accurately I think, remarked about the statute:
“The statute itself does not specifically create a cause of action whereby the aggrieved employee may recover money damages from his former employer for failure to provide a proper service letter. However, in an early case our Supreme Court judicially legislated a cause of action for money damages in favor of the employee. Cheek v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 192 S.W. 387 [(Mo.)]. In later cases it was held that the cause of action for money damages lies solely against the corporate employer and not against the superintendent, manager or other employee to whom the request for a service letter was directed. Brinks, Inc. v. Hoyt, 179 F.2d 355 (8th Cir. 1950). Thus, in effect, the statute was judicially rewritten to impose liability for money damages on the corporation which presumably is in a position to pay. On the other hand, the penal provision directed to the superintendent or manager by the statute as written has fallen into disuse and now seems rather meaningless.

“Historically, the Service Letter Statute was enacted as remedial legislation to correct the abuse of ‘blacklisting,’ a practice engaged in by some employers around the turn of the century.
“[0]ne may well ask whether or not the statute still serves a legitimate purpose. Assuming that its purpose is still valid, has the statute been subject to abuse? It seems to the author that the statute is being used to an increasing extent to harass and intimidate employers and to lay the groundwork for litigation irrespective of the contents of the letter. Bearing in mind that the creation of a cause of action for money damages was an act of judicial legislation by the Missouri Supreme Court, perhaps the time has come for a reexamination of the statute and its liberal construction by our appellate courts. In an age when the employee has gained a full measure of protection under the law, the Service Letter Statute seems to have lost its original function as a shield for the employee against employer ‘blacklisting’ and has become instead a wellspring of frivolous litigation in which a jury is invited to second-guess the employer in respect to one of the prerogatives of management, i.e., the termination of the plaintiff’s employment.” (Emphasis added.)
Soebbing, The Missouri Service Letter Statute Revisited, 34 J.Mo.Bar 80, 83 (1978). I would overrule Cheek and its progeny.