Follett v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
530 S.W.3d 884
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Martha Follett worked ~2 years as a breakfast attendant for Quality Inn & Suites and was discharged in December 2016.
- Employer cited prior guest complaints (two written warnings), an alleged failure to properly clean a milk pitcher, and Follett’s refusal to sign a final reprimand as reasons for discharge.
- Follett testified she had cleaned the pitcher, denied the rude behavior alleged in guest complaints, and refused to sign the reprimand because it was untrue; she said she was unaware of one prior warning.
- The Appeal Tribunal found Follett eligible for benefits; the Arkansas Board of Review reversed, concluding Follett’s refusal to sign the reprimand amounted to misconduct.
- The court reviews the Board’s findings for substantial-evidence support and applies Arkansas law that disqualifies employees for discharge for misconduct, which requires intentional or willful wrongdoing rather than isolated negligence or good-faith errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Follett was discharged for "misconduct in connection with the work" | Follett argued she did not engage in the misconduct alleged: she cleaned the milk pitcher, was not rude, and refused to sign only because the reprimand was untrue | Employer argued repeated warnings, the unclean milk pitcher incident, and Follett’s refusal to sign the reprimand showed misconduct | Reversed: substantial evidence did not support finding of misconduct; refusal to sign a disputed reprimand — without proof of intentional wrongdoing — is insufficient |
| Whether refusing to sign a reprimand can be misconduct absent other proof | Follett: refusal was a good-faith denial of an untrue write-up; employer had previously allowed refusal without termination | Employer: refusal to sign demonstrates insubordination/disregard for employer’s rules | Held: refusal to sign, when based on a bona fide dispute and with no prior discipline for similar refusal, is not misconduct here |
| Sufficiency of evidence for the alleged underlying acts (rudeness and unclean pitcher) | Follett: she testified she did not commit those acts; Board found her testimony credible on the underlying acts | Employer: presented written warnings and a manager’s testimony alleging those incidents | Held: Board credited Follett’s testimony that she was not rude and had cleaned the container, so the alleged underlying misconduct was not proved |
| Burden on employer to prove misconduct | Follett: employer failed to meet its burden to prove intentional misconduct by a preponderance | Employer: relied on warnings and manager testimony to meet burden | Held: employer did not meet its burden; substantial evidence lacking to support misconduct finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Dir., 470 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (defines unemployment "misconduct" standard and substantial-evidence review)
- Rockin J Ranch, LLC v. Dir., 469 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (employer bears burden to prove misconduct by preponderance)