McAteer v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
2016 Ark. App. 52
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- McAteer worked as administrative assistant for Amerities South LLC for ~10.5 months with duties including payroll and shipping.
- Supervisors repeatedly warned her in Sept-Oct 2014 about a pattern of errors in payroll, bills of lading, and employee files.
- In Oct 2014 management warned of possible discharge if significant improvement was not achieved.
- Nov 2014 follow-up noted some small improvements but continued numerous mistakes; further disciplinary action threatened.
- By Jan 2015, persistent errors continued (including payroll issues); McAteer was terminated on January 30, 2015.
- Department denied benefits for misconduct; Tribunal reversed; Board of Review reversed Tribunal, holding misconduct due to repeated, controllable errors despite progressive discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeated errors after warnings constitute misconduct | McAteer argues errors are not misconduct, akin to Greenburg. | Board contends repeated errors after warnings show intentional poor performance. | Misconduct established by repeated errors despite warnings. |
| Whether Arkansas law requires intent proof for misconduct in this context | Greenburg controls; lack of intent shown. | Recurrence after progressive discipline shows intentional poor performance. | Recurrence after progressive discipline can prove intentional poor performance. |
| Proper application of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(4)(B) | Greenburg framework should control; no clear intent shown. | Statute supports finding intentional performance decline due to repeated errors despite warnings. | Statutory language applied to affirm misconduct. |
| Standard of review for Board of Review findings | Review de novo? (not favorable to Board). | Review is for substantial evidence; credibility for the Board to determine. | Board’s findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether Greenburg is distinguishable and controlling | Greenburg is controlling when performance never improved. | Here, repeated warnings and ongoing errors align with misconduct under statute. | Greenburg distinguished; here, repeated failures after warnings constitute misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nibco v. Metcalf, 613 S.W.2d 612 (Ark. App. 1981) (misconduct requires a showing of intentional disregard of duties)
- Greenburg v. Director, 922 S.W.2d 5 (Ark. App. 1996) (enumerated misconduct not shown by isolated errors; progression matters)
- West v. Dir., 231 S.W.3d 96 (Ark. App. 2006) (misconduct involves behavioral standards; credibility for the finder)
- Maxfield v. Dir., 129 S.W.3d 298 (Ark. App. 2003) (recurrence of unsatisfactory conduct can manifest culpability)
- Clark v. Dir., 126 S.W.3d 728 (Ark. App. 2003) (element of intent associated with misconduct; substantial discretion)