State, Department of Career Education, Division of Rehabilitation Services v. Means, 2013 Ark. 173

ARS is a Arkansas state agency providing rehabilitation services; Means, a licensed psychologist, contracted part-time with ARS for HSRC services.
Means’s contract ran from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2009, renewable for seven years by agreement; he existed as an independent contractor under the contract terms.
In 2008, Means reported concerns about waste of public funds to the OIG, prompting further information gathering.
Days after reporting, ARS terminated Means citing a shift to a new counseling model; Means sued under Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act for wrongful termination and remedies.
Circuit court denied ARS’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment; trial proceeded to a jury which awarded Means $110,452.
ARS sought post-trial relief (new trial/remittitur), which the circuit court denied; ARS appeals on multiple legal grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Means is a public employee as a matter of law	Means was a public employee under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-602(4).	Means was an independent contractor; not a public employee, so no Whistle-Blower Act claim.	Means is a public employee; denial of directed verdict affirmed.
Whether the circuit court erred by not granting a directed verdict on reporting to an appropriate authority	Means reported to a supervisor and other authorities; supervisor qualifies as appropriate authority.	Supervisor within ARS is not an appropriate authority under § 21-1-602(2)(A).	The circuit court did not err; supervisor can be an appropriate authority; no directed verdict required.
Whether the circuit court erred in failing to instruct on mitigation of damages	No specific mitigation issues were proven; instruction appropriate if supported.	Mitigation instruction properly requested but unsupported by evidence; court should not give.	No abuse of discretion; no basis in evidence to support mitigation instruction.
Whether the denial of post-trial motions (new trial/remittitur) is reviewable and correct	Appellant argues reasons for new trial/remittitur; appeal from denial of post-trial relief.	Record insufficiently shows error; appeal improperly seeks deemed denial.	Appellant failed to present a complete record; merits not reviewable; judgment affirmed.

Bedell v. Williams, 2012 Ark. 75 (Ark. 2012) (standard for jury instruction; no abuse of discretion)
Crawford Cnty. v. Jones, 365 Ark. 585 (Ark. 2006) (definition of whistle-blower protections)
Jones v. Crawford Cnty., 232 S.W.3d 433 (Ark. 2006) (appropriate authority concept discussed)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dodson, 2011 Ark. 19 (Ark. 2011) (jury instruction sufficiency and causation standards)
Voltage Vehicles v. Ark. Motor Vehicle Comm’n, 424 S.W.3d 281 (Ark. 2012) (statutory interpretation of plain meaning)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. D.A.N. Joint Venture III, L.P., 288 S.W.3d 627 (Ark. 2008) (statutory interpretation approach)
Sluder v. Steak & Ale of Little Rock, Inc., 206 S.W.3d 213 (Ark. 2005) (absurd results doctrine in statutory interpretation)
McCoy v. Walker, 876 S.W.2d 252 (Ark. 1994) (evidence and jury instruction standards)
Minerva Enter., Inc. v. Howlett, 824 S.W.2d 377 (Ark. 1992) (mitigation of damages burden on defendant)