Samantha Bordas, Appellant, vs. FedEx Freight, Inc. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: ED113329
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION FOUR

SAMANTHA BORDAS, ) ) No. ED113329 Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) FEDEX FREIGHT, INC AND DIVISION, ) OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, ) ) Filed: September 30, 2025 Respondents. )

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

Opinion

This is an unemployment benefits case. Samantha Bordas appeals the Labor and

Industrial Relations Commission’s decision to dismiss her application for review as

untimely. But instead of challenging the Commission’s untimeliness finding, Bordas

seeks to challenge the decision on the merits by arguing here that her absences which led

to her discharge were due to a hostile work environment and thus were not willful and

disqualifying. We do not reach the merits of Bordas’s claims because the Commission

correctly dismissed her application for review as untimely which means that we must

likewise dismiss this appeal. Background

Bordas worked at FedEx Freight, Inc., until June 26, 2024, when FedEx

terminated her due to frequent absences and tardies. Bordas claims she stopped going to

work due to a hostile work environment and emotional distress from harassment and

unfair treatment. On August 7, 2024, the Division mailed to Bordas its decision

disqualifying her from employment benefits upon its finding that she left FedEx

voluntarily and without good cause. On August 21, Bordas timely appealed to the

Appeals Tribunal. On September 16, after Bordas failed to attend the September 13

hearing on her appeal, the Tribunal dismissed it. Bordas had thirty days, or until October

16, to file her application for review to the Commission of the Tribunal’s dismissal.

Bordas did not do so until December 10, 2024. Therefore, the Commission lacked

statutory authority to review her claim and dismissed it. This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

Our review of the Commission’s decision is governed by the Missouri

Constitution and section 288.210. 1 We review whether the Commission’s decision is

“authorized by law” and “supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the

whole record.” MO. CONST. art. V, section 18. Statute section 288.210 allows this

Court to modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the Commission’s decision if

the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers; procured the decision by fraud;

the facts found by the Commission do not support the award; or there was not sufficient

1 All statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri (2016).

2 competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award. Dickerman v.

Amazon.com, Inc., 689 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Mo. App. 2024) (citing Dewes v. Div. of Emp.

Sec., 660 S.W.3d 489, 493-94 (Mo. App. 2023)). This Court “may only address the

issues that were determined by the Commission and may not consider issues that were

not before the Commission.” Huckaby v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 363 S.W.3d 52, 54 (Mo.

App. 2011) (internal citation omitted).

Discussion

Bordas claims the Commission erred in dismissing her application for review

because it was not supported by competent or substantial evidence since her misconduct

was not willful and instead was the result of a hostile work environment. We dismiss

because Bordas’s application for review to the Commission was untimely and like the

Commission, we lack the authority to reach the merits of her appeal.

The statutory procedures set forth for appeals in unemployment security cases are

mandatory. Harden v. Div. Emp’t Sec., 655 S.W.3d 796, 800 (Mo. App. 2022). A party

appealing the Tribunal’s decision has thirty days to file an application for review with the

Commission. Section 288.190.3; Schmidt v. Ritter Horticultural Services, Inc., 678

S.W.3d 134, 136 (Mo. App. 2023). In the event of an untimely application for review

with the Commission, “the Commission has no authority to consider the merits of the

application for review, and dismissal is proper.” Dewes. 660 S.W.3d at 494.

Furthermore, this Court may only address issues determined by the Commission and may

not consider issues that were not before the Commission. Fast v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 671

S.W.3d 390, 393 (Mo. App. 2023).

3 First, Bordas does not challenge the Commission’s decision that her appeal was

untimely and instead attempts to attack the merits of the Division’s finding. This she

cannot do. Stanton v. Div. of Emp. Sec., 321 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Mo. App. 2010); Porter v.

Div. of Emp. Sec., 688 S.W.3d 26, 28-29 (Mo. App. 2024). Moreover, Bordas did not file

her application for review until two months after it was due. Thus, the Commission

correctly decided that it did not have authority to consider the merits of Bordas’s claim.

Jacobson v. Syberg’s Eating and Drinking Company, Inc., 652 S.W.3d 376 (Mo. App.

2022).

Conclusion

Appeal dismissed. 2

___________________________________ JAMES M. DOWD, JUDGE

Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, P.J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. concur.

2 We need not address the Division’s motion to dismiss.