Blanton v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.
575 S.W.3d 186
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Blanton worked as a sweeper/scrubber for Saint Jean Industries from July 2017 until mid-July 2018 and injured his back the weekend after his last day of work (July 13, 2018).
- He obtained doctor’s notes excusing him through July 25, 2018, underwent an MRI on July 24, and texted his immediate supervisor (Ashley) that he was seeing a specialist and asked whether to keep bringing notes or just bring a release when cleared.
- Ashley replied ambiguously; Blanton’s wife delivered the first two doctor’s notes to the workplace; Blanton did not directly contact Darren (the manager allegedly authorized to approve leaves).
- Blanton was released to work on July 30 but learned he had been replaced and later learned his separation was classified as "no call/no show." He applied for unemployment benefits.
- The employer did not participate in the unemployment hearing; the Board of Review concluded Blanton was discharged for misconduct (no call/no show). The appellate court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported that finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blanton committed misconduct disqualifying him from benefits | Blanton: he notified his supervisor, provided doctor’s notes, and reasonably believed his absence was excused until release | Employer: Blanton failed to report to work or properly notify management after July 25 (no call/no show) | Reversed: substantial evidence did not support a finding of misconduct |
| Whether employer met burden to prove intentional or willful violation | Blanton: absence resulted from medical incapacity and communication with supervisor, not willful disregard | (Employer absent at hearing; relied on personnel policy and termination classification) | Reversed: employer failed to prove intentional misconduct by preponderance |
| Whether employee complied with company absence policy | Blanton: he followed policy by notifying a supervisor and providing notes; confusion over leave-approval procedure excused further steps | Employer: asserted policy required direct notice to supervisor/manager and penalties for no call/no show | Court: facts showed compliance with notification to immediate supervisor and ambiguity about leave approval, so misconduct not shown |
| Standard of review: substantial evidence for Board’s factual finding | Blanton: Board lacked substantial evidence to find misconduct; equivocal evidence insufficient | Board: (implicit) its finding should stand if supported by substantial evidence | Held: viewing evidence favorably to Board, reasonable minds could not accept it as adequate to support misconduct finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Director, Department of Workforce Services, 478 S.W.3d 276 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (defines substantial-evidence review and outlines misconduct standard for unemployment)
- Taylor v. Director, Department of Workforce Services, 558 S.W.3d 420 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (requires intentional or deliberate conduct for misconduct disqualifying benefits)
- Moody v. Director, Department of Workforce Services, 432 S.W.3d 157 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (articulates elements of misconduct in unemployment context)