439 S.W.3d 85
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Margaret Jones was employed by Packers Sanitation from May 2011 until her termination in October 2013.
- Jones was discharged for allegedly leaving work without permission after missing four days due to illness that the employer knew about from the start.
- She testified she informed a supervisor's superior (not her immediate supervisor) that she was ill and needed to go home because she was vomiting.
- Jones did not provide a doctor’s note; she could not afford a $200 visit, and her insurer would not cover it due to deductible status.
- The Appeal Tribunal, adopted by the Board, found Jones discharged for misconduct for leaving without permission and failing to provide a doctor’s excuse.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding Jones’s illness-related absences were beyond her control and not misconduct, and remanded for benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is absence due to illness misconduct for unemployment benefits? | Jones argues illness inescapably beyond her control; not willful disregard. | Employer contends four-day absence without a doctor’s note shows misconduct under policy. | No; absences due to illness may be non-misconduct if without willful disregard. |
| Does lack of a doctor’s note constitute misconduct? | Inability to obtain a note due to cost does not prove misconduct. | Employer required a doctor’s excuse; absence without it evidences misconduct. | No; lack of documentation alone does not establish misconduct in this case. |
| Did the Board properly apply the bona fide attendance policy and related standards? | Absences were illness-related and disclosed to a supervisor; no intentional rule violation. | Policy requiring notice and documentation supports misconduct finding. | Board decision reversed; attendance policy application did not show misconduct here. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for misconduct determinations? | Review should focus on whether the Board had substantial evidence of misconduct. | Board’s findings should be sustained if supported by substantial evidence. | Board’s denial reversed; substantial-evidence standard applied to support reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walls v. Director, Employment Security Department, 74 Ark.App. 424 (2001) (reversed misconduct where illness-related absences were involuntary and not willful misconduct)
- Oliver v. Director, Employment Security Department, 94 S.W.3d 362 (2002) (absences due to illness not misconduct when informed employer and exclusions apply)
- Nibco, Inc. v. Metcalf, 613 S.W.2d 612 (1981) (misconduct includes disregard of employer's interests; mere negligence not misconduct)
- Maxfield v. Dir., Ark. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 129 S.W.3d 298 (2003) (reiterates misconduct requires degree of intentional disregard of employer's interests)
- Garrett v. Dir., Dep’t of Workforce Servs., 2014 Ark. 50 (2014) (substantial evidence standard applied to misconduct determinations)