Roberts v. Dir.
2014 Ark. App. 201
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Roberts worked for Hall Mfg. from 1987 to 2013 as an assistant supervisor and was discharged on April 8, 2013.
- On that morning Roberts learned a subordinate was being fired for falsifying mileage; he was later told his own position was eliminated with severance.
- Roberts applied for unemployment benefits and listed discharge for negligently supervising the subordinate as the reason.
- The tribunal denied benefits citing misconduct under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514 based on Roberts' explanation.
- The Board of Review affirmed the denial; the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding the layoff reason outweighed alleged misconduct and remanded for benefits.
- The court emphasized the severance and downsizing as the actual basis for termination, not misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Roberts’ termination due to misconduct or layoff? | Roberts contends the termination was a downsizing layoff. | Employer contends Roberts’ negligent supervision constitutes misconduct. | Termination due to downsizing, not misconduct. |
| Did the Board err in crediting Roberts’ testimony over the employer’s silence and lack of rebuttal? | Weight of evidence supports layoff, not misconduct. | Board could weigh the employer’s silence as not supporting misconduct. | Credibility assessment favored layoff; no misconduct proven. |
| Did the employer fail to prove misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence? | No evidence of intentional disregard or pattern of misconduct. | The cited incident constitutes misconduct. | No misconduct shown; remand for benefits. |
| Should the decision be reversed and the claimant awarded benefits? | Record shows layoff; benefits should be awarded. | Record supports denial for misconduct. | Reversed and remanded for award of unemployment benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Dir., 94 Ark. App. 381, 231 S.W.3d 96 ((Ark. App. 2006)) (standard for substantial evidence review in unemployment cases)
- Crisp v. Dir., 2013 Ark. App. 219 ((Ark. App. 2013)) (precedent on sufficient evidence for misconduct determinations)
- Bergman v. Dir., 379 S.W.3d 625 ((Ark. 2010)) (clarifies misconduct elements and burden of proof)