Charles Rademan v. Al Scheppers Motor Company and Division of Employment Security ( 2014 )

In the
Missouri Court of Appeals
Western District

CHARLES RADEMAN, 
 WD76396
Appellant,  OPINION FILED:
v. 
 MARCH 4, 2014
AL SCHEPPERS MOTOR COMPANY 
AND DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT 
SECURITY, 

Respondents. 
Appeal from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission
Before Division Three: Anthony Rex Gabbert, P.J.,
Victor C. Howard, Thomas H. Newton, JJ.
Charles Rademan appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission
(“Commission”) affirming the Appeals Tribunal’s decision that Rademan was discharged by his
employer for misconduct connected with work, thereby disqualifying him from unemployment
benefits. Rademan raises one point on appeal. Rademan argues that the Commission erred in
denying him unemployment benefits because the decision was not supported by competent and
substantial evidence because he was not fired for misconduct but rather for refusing to sign the
reprimand papers his employer wanted him to sign. We dismiss Rademan’s appeal for failure to
comply with Rule 84.04 and failure to include any legal authority supporting his claim.
Factual Background
Rademan was employed by Al Scheppers Motor Company (“Employer”) for many years,
working at the parts desk. On October 11, 2012, Tina Sieg, Employer’s Parts Manager, met with
Rademan about three complaints made to the Employer by his co-workers. As a result of the
complaints, Sieg presented two written reprimands to Rademan to review and sign. When
Rademan was asked to sign the reprimands, he refused. Sieg said that he could sign the
reprimands and indicate next to his signature that he was signing under protest. Rademan still
refused to sign the reprimands. After multiple refusals to sign, Rademan was fired.
Rademan applied for unemployment benefits. The Division’s deputy determined that
Rademan was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. The Employer appealed
the decision to the Appeals Tribunal. The Appeals Tribunal reversed the deputy’s determination,
finding that Rademan was disqualified for misconduct connected with work and, therefore,
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Rademan appealed the Appeals Tribunal’s
decision to the Commission. The Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the Appeals
Tribunal. Rademan appeals.
Appeal Dismissed
Before deciding the merits of Rademan’s appeal, this Court must determine whether
Rademan’s brief substantially complies with the mandatory rules for appellate briefing under
Rule 84.04. We first note that Rademan is before this Court pro se. Rademan is fully entitled to
proceed pro se, but he is bound by the same rules of procedure as those represented by counsel.
Moran v. Mason, 236 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Mo. App. 2007). While this Court is mindful of the
problems facing pro se appellants, we cannot relax the standards for non-attorneys. First State
Bank of St. Charles v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 277 S.W.3d 749, 752 (Mo. App. 2008). “This
2
principal is not grounded in a lack of sympathy but rather it is necessitated by the requirement of
judicial impartiality, judicial economy and fairness to all parties.” Thompson v. Flagstar Bank,
FSB, 299 S.W.3d 311, 313 (Mo. App. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). As such,
Rademan is required to substantially comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule
84.04, as well as all other Missouri Court Rules. Id. Failure to substantially comply with Rule
84.04 is grounds for dismissal. First State Bank of St. Charles, 277 S.W.3d at 752.
In reviewing Rademan’s brief we find that it fails to substantially comply with Rule
84.04. First, Rademan’s brief lacks a table of cases, statutes, and other authorities cited, with
reference to the pages of the brief where they are cited, in violation of Rule 84.04(a)(1). In fact,
the brief lacks any legal authority. “It is an appellant’s obligation to cite appropriate and
available precedent if [the appellant] expects to prevail.” In re Marriage of Spears, 995 S.W.2d
500, 503 (Mo. App. 1999). “Where, as here, the appellant neither cites relevant authority nor
explains why such authority is not available, the appellate court is justified in considering the
points abandoned and dismiss the appeal.” Id.
Second, Rule 84.04(c) requires that the statement of facts “be a fair and concise statement
of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination without argument.” Rademan’s
statement of facts are argumentative, similar to what one would find in a pleading to a trial court.
Furthermore, the statement of facts fails to cite “specific page references to the relevant portion
of the record on appeal.” Rule 84.04(c). “This Court will not act as an advocate by scouring the
record for facts to support [Rademan’s] contentions.” First State Bank of St. Charles, 277
S.W.3d at 752.
Third, Rademan’s Point Relied On fails to comply with Rule 84.04(d). Not only does
Rademan fail to include a list of legal authority upon which he relies, he does not “explain in
3
summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of
reversible error.” Rule 84.04(2)(C),(5).
Finally, Rademan’s brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04(e). The argument portion of the
brief “should show how the principles of law and the facts of the case interact.” Boyd v. Boyd,
134 S.W.3d 820, 824 (Mo. App. 2004). Rademan’s argument portion does not state any
principles of law and his facts are argumentative, similar to his statement of facts section.
Additionally, Rule 84.04(e) requires a brief statement regarding the applicable standard of
review. Rademan’s brief does not include such a statement.
We note that this Court struck Rademan’s first appellate brief for many of the
aforementioned briefing deficiencies, and thereafter mailed him a letter advising him of the
deficiencies. In Rademan’s amended brief, he failed to correct any of the deficiencies
enumerated in this Court’s letter to him. In order to fix these deficiencies and determine if
Rademan is entitled to relief, it would require this Court to act as Rademan’s advocate—which
we cannot do. Smith v. Med Plus Healthcare, 401 S.W.3d 573, 576 (Mo. App. 2013).
Therefore, because Rademan’s brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04, it preserves nothing for
review. First State Bank of St. Charles, 277 S.W.3d at 753.
We conclude, therefore, that because Rademan’s brief fails to substantially comply with
Rule 84.04 and fails to include any legal authority supporting his claim, it preserves nothing for
our review. We dismiss this appeal.
Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge
All concur.
4