WHITE v. DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (2026)

Introduction

Sharonda White, pro se, appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying her request to backdate her unemployment compensation benefit year. White claims she had good cause to delay filing her claim. The Commission's decision is affirmed.

Background

White was employed full-time until June 30, 2025. White filed her initial claim for unemployment benefits on August 7, 2025. The Division of Employment Security found her to be an insured worker who qualified for unemployment benefits. White's benefit year began on August 3, 2025.

White appealed to the Division's Appeals Tribunal seeking to have her benefit year backdated to begin in July 2025. At a telephone hearing, White testified that she did not immediately apply for benefits because she hoped to find new full-time employment and was working part-time. White stated she did not know she could apply for benefits while working part-time. The Appeals Tribunal found White did not have good cause to assign an earlier date for her benefit year.

White applied for review with the Commission. On review, the Commission adopted the Appeals Tribunal's decision and affirmed the decision to not backdate White's benefit year. White appeals pro se.

Discussion

Rule 84.04 sets forth appellate briefing requirements. “Compliance with Rule 84.04 is mandatory to give notice to the other party of the precise matters at issue and to ensure that appellate courts do not become advocates for the appellant by speculating about facts and arguments that have not been made.” Starcher v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 672 S.W.3d 861, 863 (Mo. App. 2023).

Pro se parties are held to the same standards as attorneys and must follow Rule 84.04's briefing requirements. Hunter v. Transimpex Translators Interpreters Eds. Consultants Inc., 731 S.W.3d 607, 611 (Mo. App. 2026). “Judicial impartiality, judicial economy, and fairness to all parties necessitates that [this Court does] not grant pro se litigants preferential treatment with regard to their compliance with those procedural rules.” Amrine v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 726 S.W.3d 800, 807 (Mo. App. 2025) (quoting R.M. v. King, 671 S.W.3d 394, 397 (Mo. App. 2023)).

However, this Court has discretion to review an appeal “when the [briefing] deficiencies do not impede review on the merits.” Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 508 (Mo. banc 2022); Ward v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 600 S.W.3d 283, 287 (Mo. App. 2020). Although White's is not technically compliant, the issues are not so substantial that review of White's claim on appeal is impeded. Kouadio-Tobey v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 651 S.W.3d 839, 843 (Mo. App. 2022).

Backdating Unemployment Benefits

White claims the Commission erred by finding she did not have good cause to justify the delay in filing her unemployment claim and in refusing to backdate her unemployment benefits to begin in July 2025. White argues she had good cause because she did not know she could file for unemployment benefits while she was working part-time.

Standard of Review

This Court reviews the Commission's decision to determine whether it is “supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.” Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 18. “The findings of the [C]ommission as to the facts, if supported by competent and substantial evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive ․.” Section 288.210, RSMo 2016. This Court defers to the Commission's factual findings. Billings v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 399 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Mo. banc 2013).

Analysis

A benefit year begins “with the first day of the first week with respect to which an insured worker first files an initial claim for determination of such worker's insured status․.” Section 288.030.1(3). However, when there is good cause, the benefit year may be assigned a date earlier than the week the initial claim was filed. 8 CSR 10-3.010(2). Good cause for assigning an earlier date exists when there are circumstances “beyond the reasonable control of the claimant and then only if the claimant acts as soon as practical.” 8 CSR 10-3.010(12).

The Commission found there was not evidence demonstrating good cause to backdate the start of White's benefit year. White testified she hoped she could quickly be re-employed, and she did not know she could receive benefits while she continued working part-time. Based on White's testimony the Commission determined there were no circumstances beyond her reasonable control that prevented her from filing earlier.

There was no evidence White faced a circumstance beyond her control that prevented her from filing an earlier claim. Although the Court understands and appreciates her reasons for doing so, the fact remains that White intentionally chose to delay her filing. Accordingly, the Commission's decision to not backdate the date of White's benefit year is supported by competent and substantial evidence.

Conclusion

The Commission's decision is affirmed.

John P. Torbitzky, Judge

Michael E. Gardner, Presiding Judge and James M. Dowd, Judge concur.