Sandy v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.
542 S.W.3d 870
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Kevin Sandy, a long‑time City of Fort Smith employee and deputy director of business administration, was discharged on January 23, 2017.
- The City alleged four grounds: refusal to provide a password to an internal auditor, procedural errors on purchase and bond‑reimbursement requests, unauthorized relocation of a City computer, and untimely approval of a fuel‑purchase request.
- Sandy testified the incidents resulted from miscommunications, mistaken assumptions, and undisclosed procedural/policy changes; he had no prior disciplinary history in 27 years.
- The Appeal Tribunal awarded unemployment benefits, finding Sandy’s conduct did not constitute misconduct. The Arkansas Board of Review reversed, finding intentional disregard of the employer’s interest based primarily on the password and fuel‑request incidents.
- The appellate court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Sandy engaged in misconduct warranting denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sandy) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sandy’s conduct was "misconduct" disqualifying him from unemployment benefits | Incidents were miscommunications, errors, or unknown policy changes, not intentional or willful | Sandy intentionally disregarded employer’s interest by withholding a password and delaying fuel approval | Reversed: Board lacked substantial evidence of intentional misconduct |
| Whether isolated/brief failures can constitute misconduct | Isolated inefficiency and good‑faith errors do not rise to misconduct | Two failures showed willful disregard sufficient to deny benefits | Court: Isolated mistakes without evidence of intent are not misconduct |
| Burden of proof for employer to show misconduct | Employer must prove misconduct by preponderance; no such proof here | Employer contends it met burden via testimony and audit findings | Court: Employer failed to meet burden; evidence insufficient |
| Effect of absence of prior discipline and lack of known policy | Long tenure and no prior discipline undercut finding of wrongful intent | Prior instances not required; current acts demonstrate disregard | Court: Absence of prior discipline and unknown policies weigh against finding intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitmer v. Dir., 525 S.W.3d 45 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (single instance of misconduct without prior issues does not necessarily establish willful disregard)
- Follett v. Dir., 530 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (isolated good‑faith errors and lack of notice of rule make misconduct finding unsupported)
- Rockin J Ranch, LLC v. Dir., 469 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (misconduct includes intentional or willful disregard of employer rules and interests)