Johnson v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
465 S.W.3d 878
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Cassie Johnson, employed as a security corporal with Arkansas DOC from 2003, was on workers' compensation/FMLA leave for a back injury from Aug 2013 through Sept 2014.
- Treating clinic communicated with the employer via the Public Employee Claims Division; Johnson did not receive a direct written release to return to work from her doctor.
- Employer claims doctor released Johnson on Sept 17, 2014; Johnson did not report or call work on Sept 18, 19, and 22 and was discharged on Sept 23, 2014 under a policy permitting termination after three no-calls/no-shows.
- Johnson asserts she was unaware she had been released and believed she needed a job-essential form filled out by her doctor before returning; she contacted HR after termination upon noticing a workers’ comp pay issue.
- The Appeal Tribunal and Board of Review concluded Johnson willfully disregarded employer interests and denied unemployment benefits; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether her absences constituted misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson's unreported absences after alleged release amounted to misconduct under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a) | Johnson: She was not informed she was released; she relied on claim-division communications and needed a job-essential form before returning. | DOC: Doctor released her 9/17; failure to call or report for three working days violates conduct code and permits termination for absenteeism. | Court: No substantial evidence of intentional or willful rule violation; misunderstanding, not misconduct; benefits awarded on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cigsby v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 188 (discussing employer's burden to prove misconduct by a preponderance of evidence)
- Pacheco v. Dir., Employment Sec. Dep't, 92 Ark. App. 122 (definition of misconduct requiring more than mere inefficiency or good-faith errors)
- Carrett v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2014 Ark. 50 (standard of review: appellate court affirms if Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence)
- Walls v. Dir., Employment Sec. Dep't, 74 Ark. App. 424 (intentional violation or willful disregard required to show misconduct)
- Clark v. Dir., Employment Sec. Dep't, 83 Ark. App. 308 (appellate court will not rubber-stamp Board decisions; review for substantial evidence)