McCuller-Silverman v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
2017 Ark. App. 606
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Sharon McCuller-Silverman was terminated as assisted-living administrator at Trinity Village and applied for unemployment benefits.
- Trinity Village reported discharge for insubordination: refusing to prepare a required plan of correction, discussing confidential financial and personnel matters, and unprofessional/hostile conduct; employer referenced handbook paragraphs A#54, A#57, B#37, A#34, B#23, B#34.
- Department of Workforce Services initially determined McCuller-Silverman was eligible for benefits; Trinity timely appealed to the Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal).
- At the telephone hearing, employer witnesses (Stone and Reed) testified claimant was instructed to prepare the plan of correction on June 27 and refused; claimant did not testify; a coworker (Margie Smith) disputed who was assigned the plan.
- The Tribunal affirmed the Department’s award of benefits; the Board of Review reversed, finding misconduct/insubordination supported by testimony and employer policy, and denied benefits.
- McCuller-Silverman appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals challenging the Board’s authority, sufficiency of evidence, and a separate Tribunal repayment finding; the court affirmed the Board and declined to reach the repayment issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Board have authority to review the Tribunal’s decision? | Board exceeded authority and abused discretion | Board may review Tribunal decisions under Ark. Code § 11-10-525 | Board had authority to review under § 11-10-525(b); review was proper |
| Was there substantial evidence to support Board’s finding of misconduct/insubordination? | Employer failed to prove misconduct; Tribunal was correct | Employer presented testimony that claimant refused a direct instruction and violated confidentiality and policy | Substantial evidence supported Board’s credibility determinations and finding of misconduct; benefits properly denied |
| Did employer meet burden to show willful or substantial disregard (misconduct) under Ark. Code § 11-10-514(a)? | Claimant argued actions were not misconduct but misunderstandings and possibly retaliation for EEOC filing | Employer relied on handbook rules, prior practice (2015 plan), and testimony showing direct instruction and refusal | Court concluded reasonable minds could find willful disregard/insubordination; employer met burden |
| Is an alleged Tribunal decision requiring repayment of benefits reviewable in this appeal? | Claimant asked reversal of repayment finding as premature | Employer noted repayment not addressed by Board; would be separate appeal | Court held repayment issue not properly before it; did not decide it here |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. Director, 2015 Ark. App. 337 (discussing substantial-evidence standard for Board findings)
- Ivy v. Director, 2013 Ark. App. 381 (scope of appellate review of unemployment-benefit determinations)
- Zenaro v. Director, 2017 Ark. App. 290 (defining misconduct to include violation of behavioral policies)
- Whitmer v. Director, 2017 Ark. App. 367 (distinguishing ordinary negligence from misconduct requiring willful or substantial disregard)
- Clark v. Director, 2015 Ark. App. 491 (Board’s role in resolving conflicting testimony)
- Holloway v. Director, 2012 Ark. App. 635 (separate appeals required for repayment determinations)
- Ziegler v. Director, 2012 Ark. App. 595 (same point on separate appealability of repayment orders)