Hopkins v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
571 S.W.3d 524
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Tamica Hopkins, a teacher’s aide for Wynne School District, was discharged on June 19, 2018, for excessive absenteeism.
- The Department of Workforce Services denied unemployment benefits; Hopkins appealed to the Appeal Tribunal which held a telephonic hearing.
- Employer presented its written sick-leave/attendance policy and testified Hopkins had 18.5 absences by Jan 9, 2018, received reprimands, then accrued an additional 31 absences; Hopkins said absences were due to personal illness.
- The Tribunal and the Arkansas Board of Review affirmed denial of benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(2) as discharge for violating an attendance policy.
- The Board relied on the employer’s written policy but the policy did not specify discharge for excessive absenteeism, only loss of pay for absences.
- The court concluded neither (1) discharge pursuant to a bona fide written attendance policy nor (2) a finding of willful misconduct (willful disregard of the employer’s interest) had been established, and remanded for a finding on willfulness.
Issues
| Issue | Hopkins' Argument | Wynne School District's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hopkins was discharged for misconduct connected with work (absenteeism) | Absences due to personal illness; not willful, thus not misconduct | Discharge based on violation of employer’s written attendance policy | Reversed and remanded — Board failed to show discharge under bona fide written policy or find willful misconduct; remand to decide willfulness |
| Whether employer may rely on § 11-10-514(a)(2) no-fault policy provision | Policy did not create discharge remedy; Hopkins argues policy provisions only addressed pay deductions | Employer contends written policy supports disqualification for absenteeism | Court held employer did not establish discharge pursuant to a bona fide written attendance policy as required; insufficient |
| Whether, absent reliance on written policy, facts show willful misconduct | Hopkins: absences were for illness and beyond control, not willful | Employer: repeated absences after reprimands show disregard for employer’s interest | Court: No factual finding by Board that Hopkins’ conduct was willful; remand required for this determination |
| Burden of proof for misconduct | Hopkins: employer must prove misconduct by preponderance | Employer: same, claims it met burden via policy and attendance record | Court: Employer did not meet burden under (a)(2); Board must determine if burden met under (a)(3) willfulness on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Dir., 517 S.W.3d 427 (discussing standard of review and substantial evidence)
- McAteer v. Dir., 481 S.W.3d 776 (definition and intent element of misconduct)
- Higgins v. Dir., 503 S.W.3d 833 (when employer fails to follow policy, evaluate willful disregard)
- Hernandez v. Dir., 461 S.W.3d 708 (employer cannot rely on no-fault provision if it did not follow its policy; willful absence can constitute misconduct)