Keith v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.
564 S.W.3d 296
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Victoria Keith worked 31 years for Tyson as a line lead on production/packaging of Mexican-food products and was fired on February 26, 2018.
- Tyson terminated Keith after she received two written warnings (one with a one-day suspension) within one year: March 2017 and February 2018.
- March 2017 incident: foreign material (metal and nonmetal) was found in packaged food; Keith handed metal to her supervisor but discarded nonmetal material, believing only metal had to be reported; she received a written warning and one-day suspension.
- February 2018 incident: Keith checked a date-stamping machine but failed to ensure the year was updated, resulting in packages stamped 2017 instead of 2018 and multiple pallets put on hold; she received a written warning with suspension, which triggered termination.
- Tyson argued the progressive discipline and repeated failures showed intentional misconduct; the Board found misconduct and denied unemployment benefits; Keith appealed to the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Keith was discharged for "misconduct in connection with the work" disqualifying her from unemployment benefits | Keith: the errors were isolated, good-faith mistakes or ordinary negligence, not intentional misconduct | Tyson: progressive discipline for repeated job-performance issues shows intentional failure to perform duties | Held: Reversed — substantial evidence does not support finding of misconduct; errors were isolated and insufficient to show wrongful intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Director, 470 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (defines misconduct standard for unemployment benefits and requires intent)
- Rockin J Ranch, LLC v. Director, 469 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (employer bears burden to prove misconduct by preponderance)
- Follett v. Director, 530 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (same standard reiterated)
- Hubbard v. Director, 460 S.W.3d 294 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (isolated negligence does not constitute misconduct)
- Sandy v. Director, 542 S.W.3d 870 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (applies misconduct standards in unemployment context)