Hernandez v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
461 S.W.3d 708
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Patricia Hernandez worked about 10 months in production for Simmons Foods and was discharged February 10, 2014, for excessive absenteeism and three consecutive no-call/no-show days.
- Simmons had a written attendance-point policy (employees could be discharged at 10 points; three consecutive days absent without notice triggers termination). Hernandez accumulated 26.5 points.
- Simmons’ HR director testified Hernandez received the policy in Spanish, saw the no-call/no-show slides at orientation, received one written warning at 6.5 points, and promised to provide doctor’s notes but provided only one (August 2013).
- The Department denied unemployment benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a) (misconduct). The Appeal Tribunal and the Arkansas Board of Review affirmed the denial.
- Hernandez argued on appeal that the Board applied an obsolete version of § 11-10-514(a)(2) and that Simmons’ failure to follow its written policy (failing to issue the usual warnings) precluded a finding of misconduct.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed for substantial-evidence and affirmed the Board, holding Hernandez’s absences and no-shows constituted misconduct warranting disqualification from benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Hernandez's Argument | Simmons/Director's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board applied the correct (current) statutory language for discharge for absenteeism under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(2) | Board cited obsolete language; Board should have applied the amended 2014 statute | Board did cite and rely on the current § 11-10-514(a)(2) and also permissibly considered whether employer followed its policy when assessing misconduct | Court held Board did reference the current statute and its reliance on attendance facts was permissible; no reversible legal error |
| Whether employer’s failure to strictly follow its written attendance policy (not giving all written warnings) precludes finding misconduct | Strict construction: if employer didn’t follow its policy, discharge cannot be misconduct under § 11-10-514(a)(2) | Strict literalism would produce absurd results; absence of or failure to follow a written policy does not automatically prevent misconduct analysis; facts still assessed for willful disregard | Court held failure to follow policy does not bar finding of misconduct; statute not to be read literally to absurdity |
| Whether Hernandez’s absences/no-shows constituted misconduct disqualifying her from benefits | Hernandez claimed lack of procedural compliance by employer and argued facts did not rise to misconduct | Director/Simmons argued repeated absences (26.5 points) and three consecutive no-call/no-shows were disregard of employer’s interests and duties | Court held Board’s factual finding of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence; disqualification affirmed |
| Standard-of-review question: whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision | Hernandez argued evidence insufficient | Director argued evidence was adequate and Board’s factfindings binding if supported by substantial evidence | Court applied substantial-evidence review and found evidence sufficient to uphold the Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Mamo Transp., Inc. v. Williams, 375 Ark. 97 (refusal to give literal statutory interpretation that leads to absurd result)
- Exson v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 177 (employee actions constitute misconduct when deliberate or willful disregard of employer’s interests)
- Nibco, Inc. v. Metcalf, 1 Ark. App. 114 (misconduct includes disregard of employer’s interests, violation of rules, and failure to meet expected standards)
- Garrett v. Director, Department of Workforce Services, 2014 Ark. 50 (whether conduct constitutes misconduct is a factual question for the Board)