Robert Grant Pennell

Although not born in Saint Louis, I’ve lived here for forty years, and consider myself a Saint Louisan. I’m a graduate of Washington University–Olin School of Business, and Saint Louis University – School of Law. And in case you, too, are a Saint Louisan, I graduated from Parkway Central Senior High School.

Unlike most of my contemporaries, I did not go directly to law school upon graduating from college. I spent five years as an Engineer Planner at McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing), managing multimillion-dollar engineering development programs for the United States military and its allies. Complying with the demanding requirements of government requests for proposals and contractual reporting more than prepared me for the rigors of the law. It helped me to hone the business sense to not merely identify potential problems/roadblocks, but to actually craft effective solutions, which is precisely how BUSINESS gets done.

I began my legal career as a trial attorney at sizable firms, including one of the oldest insurance defense firms in Saint Louis, as well as the local office of a large international firm out of Chicago. While there, I engaged in every aspect of litigation, from Pre-Trial Discovery and Dispositive Motion practice up to and including First Chair Jury Trials and Appellate Argument before the Missouri and Federal Courts of Appeal.

While initially a litigator, I have spent most of my twenty-five plus years practicing law representing businesses, large and small. Due to my business background, I deliberately transitioned to representing businesses, particularly in regard to employment and contractual matters. In so doing, I’ve assisted businesses from small start-ups to large regional enterprises and Fortune 500 companies including.

Through Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rating™ my fellow lawyers have assigned me a 5.0 out of 5.0 AV Preeminent Rating – the highest rating available. After all, that is how BUSINESS gets done!

• Unemployment Claims & Appeals

• Zoom

• Free Consultation
  Note that a free consultation is merely an opportunity to discuss your issue to determine if this firm can be of assistance.
• Credit Cards Accepted
• Rates, Retainers and Additional Information
  I prefer to charge on a flat fee basis whenever feasible to provide some level of certainty over what your financial obligations will be.

Missouri

The Missouri Bar

ID Number: 43014

Since 1993

Owner

Law Offices of Robert Grant Pennell, LLC

2001 - Current

Focusing on assisting small business owners start and develop their businesses.

General Counsel

DCSC, Inc.

1998 - Current

Senior Associate

Steven Schumaier & Associates, PC

1999 - 2001

Senior Associate

Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd.

1997 - 1999

Associate

Moser & Marsalek, PC

1993 - 1997

Antitrust Faculty Research Assistant

St. Louis University School Of Law

1992 - 1993

Judicial Intern

U.S. District Court - Southern District Illinois

1992 - 1992

Engineering Planner

McDonnell Douglas Corporation

1986 - 1992

Saint Louis University School of Law

J.D. (1993) | Business Associations, Tax, Antitrust

Washington University in St. Louis

B.S.B.A. (1985) | Business Administration, Accounting, Finance & Operations

AV Preeminent 5.0 out of 5.0 Peer Review Rated

Martindale-Hubbell

2022

Peer rated for the highest level of professional excellence.

AV Preeminent 5.0 out of 5.0 Peer Review Rated

Martindale-Hubbell

2021

Peer rated for the highest level of professional excellence.

Pro Bono Award

American Bar Association

2021

Best Business Attorneys

St. Louis Small Business Monthly

2021

Pro Bono Award

American Bar Association

2020

National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Missouri

Board Member

2021 - Current

Service Corps of Retired & Working Executives (SCORE)

Auxiliary Member

2015 - Current

American Bar Association, Business Law Section

Member

2015 - Current

American Bar Association, Business Law Section, LLCs, Partnerships and Unincorporated Business Entities Committee

Member

2015 - Current

Missouri Bar, Solo and Small Firm Planning Committee

Member

2012 - Current

Legal Entity Selection, and Licensing & Taxes (Monthly), Starting and Managing the Small Business Workshop (Monthly)

2022

Service Corps of Retired & Working Executives (SCORE)

Employee Performance, Discipline, and Discharge, Missouri Human Resource Law: What You Need to Know Now

November 19, 2021

National Business Institute

Legal Entity Selection, Licensing & Taxes, and Accounting & Finance (Monthly), Starting and Managing the Small Business Workshop (Monthly)

2021

Service Corps of Retired & Working Executives (SCORE)

Controlling Unemployment Compensation Costs, Mini Law School for HR Professionals

September 2020

National Business Institute

Legal Entity Selection, Licensing & Taxes, and Accounting & Finance (Monthly), Starting and Managing the Small Business Workshop (Monthly)

2020

Service Corps of Retired & Working Executives (SCORE)

Q. I am employed at a daycare and am being asked to attend a mandatory training with no pay. Is this legal?

November 8, 2024

A: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates that all hours worked are paid. Accordingly, the daycare may not require employees attend training offered without pay. However, the daycare could get around this by making CPR Certification a requirement of the job, with the training class an optional means of getting the required certification. If employees don’t want to go through the offered training, they can get certified elsewhere at their own expense, with employees who don’t get certified being let go.

Q. During job interview, I was promised to work from home. Now they want me in house. Is this legal?

April 1, 2024

A: You can ask, but as an at-will employee, either party can change the terms of employment at any time. The other party can then accept or reject those terms. In other words, the employer doesn't have to agree to let you work from home.

Q. How to appeal law suits judgement from unemployment claiming I was over paid witch is false

January 30, 2024

A: The unemployment appeals process is very strictly enforced. If you appealed the Deputy's Determination but failed to appear for the Appeals Hearing, your appeal was dismissed. Only evidence presented at the Appeals Hearing can be considered by the Appeals Tribunal in making its decision. Since you didn't show up, there was no evidence to consider, and your Appeal was dismissed. At that point, the only thing that will be considered by the Division is whether or not you had good cause for your failure to appear for your appeals hearing. Unless you can establish good cause for your failure to appear, you can never get the Division to even consider the underlying aspect of your claim. The former employer indicating that it would send in corrected information is irrelevant to your obligation to appear for the hearing. Your employer had no ability to fix anything because the system requires you to appear and present evidence.

You can certainly file an Application for Review to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, explaining your failure to appear at the hearing, but I think it highly unlikely that the Commission will consider your explanation a legitimate basis to remand the case back to the Appeals Tribunal. If you have already done that and it was denied, the only thing available to you at this point is to file an appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, that is likely a waste of time because the court cannot substitute its assessment for that of the Commission. An appellate court may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the decision of the Commission only where: (1) the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the decision was procured by fraud; (3) the facts found by the Commission do not support the award; or (4) there was no sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award. §288.210, RSMo 2000. In the absence of fraud, the Commission's factual findings are conclusive if supported by competent and substantial evidence. Id. Questions of law are reviewed independently, and the appellate court is not bound by the Commission’s conclusions of law or its application of law to the facts. Ayers v. Sylvia Thompson Residence Ctr., 211 S.W.3d 195, 197-98 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). On matters of witness credibility and resolution of conflicting evidence, the appellate court defers to the Commission's determinations. Id. [The court gives] deference to the Commission’s “resolution of conflicting evidence regarding a factual issue, the weighing of the evidence, and the credibility of witnesses.” Smith v. Greyhound Bus Company, 477 S.W.3d 55, 59 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citation omitted). Therefore, “[i]f the Commission has reached one of two possible conclusions as to a finding of fact, the reviewing court will not reach a contrary conclusion even if the court could reasonably do so.” Hoeft v. True Manufacturing Company, Inc., 604 S.W.3d 337, 339 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). ... Read More