STACEY BROOKS v. STATE OF MISSOURI DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (2026)

Stacey Brooks (“Brooks”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (the “Commission”) that concluded Brooks was fired for misconduct connected to her work, and was therefore disqualified from receiving waiting week credit and unemployment benefits. Because Brooks's brief materially violates Rule 84.04,¹ no issues are preserved for our review, and her appeal is hereby dismissed.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Brooks began working for License Office Services, LLC (“Employer”), on April 25, 2025, as a part-time license bureau clerk. Her last day working for Employer was October 1, 2025. On that day, Brooks provided license and registration services to a male customer. The customer and Brooks engaged in conversation about employment opportunities during the time he was at the licensing bureau. After the customer left, Brooks decided she needed to speak to the customer again about job opportunities so she obtained his phone number from Employer's records without the customer's permission. Brooks called the customer and they had another conversation. When they hung up, the customer reported the unauthorized contact to the sheriff's department and reported that Brooks had obtained his information without approval and possibly committed identify theft. Law enforcement then came to Employer's place of business and spoke with management. Employer fired Brooks that same day for misconduct by knowingly accessing a customer's information without permission for non-work-related reasons.

When Brooks filed a claim for unemployment benefits, a deputy with the Division of Employment Security found that Brooks was disqualified for waiting week credit and benefits for having been discharged due to the misconduct connected with Brooks's work as described above. Brooks appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the deputy's decision on December 16, 2025. On January 29, 2026, the Commission affirmed the Appeals Tribunal's decision that Brooks was discharged for misconduct connected to work and therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Brooks appeals.

Discussion

Because Brooks's briefing contains numerous violations of Rule 84.04, we are unable to reach the merits of her appeal.

Brooks appeals pro se. Pro se appellants are held to the same procedural rules and standards as attorneys. Maxwell v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 671 S.W.3d 742, 746 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023). Our courts have previously stated the importance of adhering to the rules for briefing set out in Rule 84.04:

Compliance with Rule 84.04 briefing requirements is mandatory in order to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates by speculating on facts and on arguments that have not been made. An appellant's failure to substantially comply with Rule 84.04 preserves nothing for our review and constitutes grounds for dismissal of the appeal. This is particularly true where, as here, we cannot competently rule on the merits of [the Appellants’] argument without first reconstructing the facts ․ and then refining and supplementing [their] points and legal argument.

Sharp v. All-N-One Plumbing, 612 S.W.3d 240, 244 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (alterations in original) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (quoting Wallace v. Frazier, 546 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018)).

The points relied on are an integral part of the brief, as they give notice to the opposing party of the matters to be contended with, and inform the court of the issues presented for review. Maxwell, 671 S.W.3d at 748. Rule 84.04(d)(2) sets forth the requirements for a point relied on in an appeal from an administrative agency:

Where the appellate court reviews the decision of an administrative agency, rather than a trial court, each point shall:

(A) Identify the administrative ruling or action the appellant challenges;

(B) State concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and

(C) Explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.

The point shall be in substantially the following form: “The [name of agency] erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error, including the reference to the applicable statute authorizing review], in that [explain why, in the context of the case, the legal reasons support the claim of reversible error].”

Brooks's points on appeal state as follows:

POINT I

The [Commission] erred in concluding that [Brooks] was discharged for misconduct connected with work under § 288.030.1(23) RSMo because the record establishes, at most, a single instance of poor judgment and does not demonstrate knowing disregard of [Employer's] interests, in that Missouri law requires proof of willful or deliberate conduct amounting to scienter, and isolated negligence or mistake does not constitute statutory misconduct.

POINT II

The Commission erred in affirming the disqualification because [Employer] failed to meet its burden of proving misconduct by competent and substantial evidence, in that [Employer] did not appear at the hearing, presented no testimony, and offered no evidence of a clearly communicated and consistently enforced policy prohibiting the conduct at issue.

POINT III

The Commission misapplied the burden of proof by concluding that [Brooks] “lifted the burden” for [Employer] through her testimony because a claimant's acknowledgment of conduct does not relieve [Employer] of its statutory obligation to prove each element of misconduct, including knowing violation and culpable intent.

None of Brooks's points conform to the template provided in Rule 84.04. Specifically, none of the points state the legal reason for her claim of error, or how the legal reason, in the context of the case, support her claim of error. Rule 84.04(d). Point II is based on an inaccurate representation of the record in this case and Point III does not identify the ruling that Brooks challenges. Additionally, Brooks's points relied on are not followed by a list of authorities upon which Brooks relies. Rule 84.04(d)(5). Given the substantial deficits in Brooks's points relied on, any attempt to reach the potential merit of her claims would require us to become an advocate on her behalf, which is something this Court cannot do. Aydin v. Boles, 658 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022).

Brooks's argument section also fails to comply with Rule 84.04. The rule requires that the argument section:

[S]hall substantially follow the order of “Points Relied On.” The point relied on shall be restated at the beginning of the section of the argument discussing that point. The argument shall be limited to those errors included in the “Points Relied On.” For each claim of error, the argument shall also include a concise statement describing whether the error was preserved for appellate review; if so, how it was preserved; and the applicable standard of review.

Rule 84.04(e). The argument section must provide analytical support for the point relied on. Auman v. Richard, 672 S.W.3d 277, 283 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023). An argument section that does not comply with Rule 84.04(e) preserves nothing for review. Id.

Brooks's points all fail to restate the point relied on at the beginning of the section of the argument discussing that point. Her arguments all similarly fail to describe whether, and how, the error was preserved for review. In addition, all of Brooks's argument sections fail to cite any authority relevant to the question on appeal, which is whether her conduct fell within the statutory definition of misconduct. Brooks cites only one case throughout her three argument sections, and it is not relevant to the question of whether her conduct constituted misconduct. To analyze Brooks's claims would require us to hypothesize and speculate about legal arguments she intended to make, which is a role we cannot undertake. Id.

We must dismiss the appeal when the briefing deficiencies are so substantial and material that they require us to step into the role of an advocate to reach the merits of the case. Kouadio-Tobey v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 651 S.W.3d 839, 843 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022). Here, Brooks's briefing deficits are so substantial that to reach the merits of her appeal would require us to ignore the requirements of Rule 84.04 altogether. Id. That, we cannot do. Brooks's appeal is hereby dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2026).

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, C.J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS BRYAN E. NICKELL, J. – CONCURS