Price v. Vendtech-SGI, LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Price v. Vendtech-SGI, LLC

508 S.W.3d 188, 2017 WL 326042, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 42

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 2017

DocketWD 79257

StatusPublished

This text of 508 S.W.3d 188 (Price v. Vendtech-SGI, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Price v. Vendtech-SGI, LLC, 508 S.W.3d 188, 2017 WL 326042, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 42 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Price was employed by Vendtech-SGI, LLC, and worked as a security guard at a federal facility. In July 2015, Price failed to pass a firearms recertification test, and Vendtech discharged him. Price applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission determined that Price had committed misconduct connected with [189]*189work when he failed the recertification test after declining additional firearms training offered by Vendtech, and that he was therefore ineligible for benefits. Price appeals, arguing that the Commission’s finding that he refused additional training is not supported by competent and substantial evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Price was employed by Vendtech-SGI, LLC, and worked as a security guard at a federal facility. In July 2015, Price failed to pass a firearms recertification test, and Vendtech discharged him. Price applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission determined that Price had committed misconduct connected with [189]*189work when he failed the recertification test after declining additional firearms training offered by Vendtech, and that he was therefore ineligible for benefits. Price appeals, arguing that the Commission’s finding that he refused additional training is not supported by competent and substantial evidence. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

508 S.W.3d 188, 2017 WL 326042, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-vendtech-sgi-llc-moctapp-2017.