Law Offices of Cook v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
2013 Ark. App. 741
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- June Gurgel-Anteski worked at The Law Offices of Craig L. Cook from Nov. 2007 until Cook terminated her by phone and letter on April 13, 2012 amid disputes over pay and performance.
- Cook asserted Anteski was an independent contractor and identified reasons for termination including unprofessional conduct, client complaints, procedural conflicts, and her remark about suing him.
- Anteski filed for unemployment benefits on April 27, 2012; the Department and Appeal Tribunal found she was discharged for reasons other than misconduct and entitled to benefits.
- Evidence included an Independent Contractor Agreement, testimony that Cook provided office space, support staff, training, sample pleadings, oversight (proofreading and approval), and payment practices (initial draw then split of fees).
- Secretaries testified about client complaints and confrontations; Anteski admitted she joked about suing Cook over accounting disputes but denied malicious intent.
- The Appeal Tribunal and Board of Review concluded Anteski was an employee (not an independent contractor) and that her termination resulted from a genuine pay dispute, not misconduct; Cook appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cook) | Defendant's Argument (Anteski) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anteski was discharged for misconduct disqualifying her from unemployment benefits | Anteski committed misconduct (client problems, unprofessional conduct, threat to sue) and thus is disqualified under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514 | Termination stemmed from a bona fide pay/accounting dispute; remark about suing was a joke and not disqualifying misconduct | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding termination was for reasons other than misconduct; benefits allowed |
| Whether Anteski was an employee or independent contractor under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-210(e) | The Independent Contractor Agreement and contractor label establish independent-contractor status | Employer exercised sufficient control (office, staff, training, oversight, pay arrangement) to establish employee status | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports Board’s conclusion that Anteski was an employee |
| Preservation of the independent-contractor issue on appeal | (Cook) Argued issue below and appended materials; contends error preserved | (Department) Argued issue not preserved for appellate review | Court addressed and decided the issue on the merits because the Tribunal squarely considered it |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Director, 81 Ark. App. 262, 101 S.W.3d 270 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (standard of appellate review of Board of Review findings)
- Ferren v. Director, 59 Ark. App. 213, 956 S.W.2d 198 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997) (when Board adopts Tribunal decision, it becomes Board's decision for review)
- West v. Director, 94 Ark. App. 381, 231 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (misconduct requires intent and is more than ordinary negligence)