## Facts

- Treva Gage and Shari Douglas were employees at a Missouri casino and held occupational gaming licenses issued by the Missouri Gaming Commission.
- Both had access to an IT room monitored by a surveillance camera.
- Another employee covered the IT room camera lens for about thirty-three minutes while Douglas was present.
- Douglas called Gage and asked what to say if questioned; Gage instructed Douglas to claim Gage had changed clothes in the IT room and forgot to uncover the camera.
- The next day, during an investigation by casino surveillance and a Missouri Highway Patrol officer, Gage and Douglas repeated the false story.
- Four days later, both admitted the story was false and identified the incident as a prank.
- The Commission issued preliminary disciplinary orders stating the licenses were subject to revocation for knowingly making false statements to Commission agents about the incident and for failing to prevent or promptly report the violation.
- The preliminary orders cited specific Missouri statutes and regulations and summarized the operative facts but did not reproduce the full text of the cited provisions.
- After an administrative hearing, the Commission entered a final order revoking both licenses.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission’s preliminary disciplinary orders provided constitutionally and statutorily adequate notice of the charges supporting revocation.
2. Whether due process required the preliminary orders to include the full text of the statutes and regulations allegedly violated.
3. Whether the factual summaries in the preliminary orders were too general to permit a meaningful defense.
4. Whether any alleged notice defect prejudiced the licensees in the administrative proceeding.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s final order revoking both occupational licenses.
- The court held the preliminary disciplinary orders gave sufficient notice by citing the specific statutes and regulations and summarizing the conduct at issue.
- The court held due process did not require the orders to reproduce the full text of the cited legal provisions or to include every evidentiary detail.
- The court found no showing of prejudice because the licensees participated in the hearing with counsel and had an opportunity to contest the facts and legal grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform a licensee of the nature of the charges and to allow preparation of a defense.
- A charging order may satisfy notice requirements by citing the statutes and regulations allegedly violated; it need not set out their full text.
- A factual summary is sufficient if it identifies the incident and the alleged misconduct in a manner that permits a meaningful defense; exhaustive factual pleading is not required.
- Absent demonstrated prejudice affecting the ability to defend, alleged technical defects in notice do not warrant reversal of an administrative disciplinary decision.

## Conclusion

Because the preliminary disciplinary orders identified the legal provisions by citation and described the camera incident and the alleged dishonesty and reporting failures, the licensees received adequate notice and an opportunity to defend; the Commission’s revocations were affirmed.


Gage v. Mo. Gaming Comm'n, 200 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2006)