Garrett v. Dir.
2014 Ark. 50
Ark.2014Background
- Garrett was a DaVita patient-care tech hired July 12, 2010, terminated January 11, 2012 for not obtaining PCT certification within 18 months.
- DaVita required CCHT certification within 18 months; the application was allegedly mishandled by the employer, delaying testing.
- The unemployment application was denied under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(1) for misconduct in connection with work.
- Appeal Tribunal affirmed the denial; Board of Review adopted the Appeal Tribunal’s decision.
- Garrett challenged the Board’s misconduct finding on appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- Court reverses and remands for an award of unemployment benefits, finding lack of substantial evidence of misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports misconduct finding | Garrett argues employer errors caused missed testing date; no intentional misconduct | Department contends Garrett’s late filing was against employer's interests and sufficient for misconduct | No substantial evidence of misconduct; Board remanded for benefits |
| Whether employer error in completing paperwork negates misconduct | Employer’s incomplete form was sole barrier to testing date | Despite error, Garrett bore responsibility for timely submission | Intent required for misconduct; absence of intent shown; remand for benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Nibco, Inc. v. Metcalf, 613 S.W.2d 612 (Ark. 1981) (misconduct requires intentional or deliberate violation; not mere negligence or error)
- Millspaugh v. Dir., Dep’t of Workforce Servs., 126 S.W.3d 728 (Ark. 2003) (conduct must include intentional or willful disregard)
- Clark v. Dir., Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 126 S.W.3d 728 (Ark. 2003) (intent element required for misconduct)
- Niece v. Dir., Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 992 S.W.2d 169 (Ark. 1999) (recognizes need for intent in misconduct)
- Rucker v. Price, 915 S.W.2d 315 (Ark. App. 1996) (disregard must show wrongful intent)
- Smith v. Dir., Arkansas Dep’t of Workforce Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 360 (Ark. App. 2013) (review on substantial-evidence standard)
- Mamo Transp., Inc. v. Williams, 375 Ark. 97, 289 S.W.3d 79 (Ark. 2008) (substantial evidence standard for Board findings)