Herman Hampton v. Director
673 S.W.3d 804
Ark. Ct. App.2023Background
- DWS denied Herman Hampton unemployment benefits, finding he was discharged for misconduct for being absent and failing to properly notify his employer.
- Initial Tribunal hearing (Aug 3, 2021) proceeded without Hampton or the employer; Tribunal relied on Hampton’s prior written statement and found misconduct for a no-call/no-show.
- Board remanded for a reopening after Hampton showed good cause for missing the first hearing; a second hearing occurred on Jan 6, 2022 with Hampton as the sole witness.
- Hampton testified he left work Sept. 19, 2019 to attend to a daughter’s medical emergency in California and returned Sept. 24, 2019, when he was told he was fired; his written July 6, 2021 statement said he returned a day or so late due to car trouble and called a day or so later.
- The Tribunal and Board credited Hampton’s earlier written statement that he failed to timely notify his employer and concluded his conduct met the statutory definition of misconduct, denying benefits.
- Hampton raised on appeal for the first time that he called before his absence; the court declined to consider that new argument or additional evidence and affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may consider Hampton’s new claim that he called before his absence | Hampton: he notified employer before being absent (raised on appeal) | Director/Board: argument not raised below and outside the record; barred from consideration | Court: decline to consider; issue waived on appeal and additional evidence prohibited by statute |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding of misconduct for failure to notify employer | Hampton: testimony at hearing contradicted earlier written statement; no employer testimony to rebut | Board: claimant’s own written statement showed he missed work and called late, supporting misconduct finding | Court: substantial evidence supports Board; credited claimant’s written statement as disqualifying evidence |
| Whether employer’s absence from hearing or lack of employer testimony defeats misconduct finding | Hampton: no employer dispute or testimony, so finding unsupported | Board: credibility and weight are for the Board; claimant’s written statement suffices | Court: lack of employer testimony does not defeat finding when claimant’s statement supports misconduct |
| Whether failure to return timely due to car trouble was mere mistake or misconduct requiring intent | Hampton: delay and car trouble were inadvertent, not deliberate misconduct | Board: failure to timely notify is disregard of employer’s expected standards and can be misconduct | Court: affirmed that failure to timely inform amounted to misconduct under applicable standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Rossini v. Director, 81 Ark. App. 286, 101 S.W.3d 266 (procedural waiver; issues not raised below not considered on appeal)
- Vasquez v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 337 S.W.3d 552 (court cannot receive additional evidence on appeal)
- Moody v. Director, 432 S.W.3d 157 (definition of misconduct in unemployment context)
- Taylor v. Director, 558 S.W.3d 420 (intent requirement; misconduct excludes mere inefficiency or good-faith errors)
- Parker v. Ramada Inn, 572 S.W.2d 409 (employee oversleeping/no-call can violate employer’s expected standards)
- Blanton v. Director, 575 S.W.3d 186 (standard of substantial-evidence review of Board decisions)