Taylor v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.
558 S.W.3d 420
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Ordean Taylor, a DHS family service specialist since 1998, was terminated on August 31, 2017, for allegedly disclosing confidential client information during a grievance hearing.
- Taylor had been reprimanded in June 2017 for a case-processing issue and filed a grievance; her union rep provided documentation (including names and SSNs) to the grievance officer without redaction.
- DHS viewed the disclosure as a breach of confidentiality and asserted Taylor knew the agency confidentiality policy from mandatory online training.
- Taylor contended she believed submission of supporting documentation was permitted in an employer/employee grievance, that she was never told to redact such information, and that she used a screenshot rather than removing physical files.
- The Appeal Tribunal and the Arkansas Board of Review found Taylor was discharged for misconduct and denied unemployment benefits; Taylor appealed to the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor’s disclosure constituted "misconduct" disqualifying her from unemployment benefits | Taylor argued she acted in good faith to support a grievance, lacked notice she had to redact, and did not intentionally disregard employer interests | DHS argued Taylor violated confidentiality policy by disclosing personal identifying information and thus willfully disregarded employer interests | The court held DHS did not prove intentional or willful misconduct; substantial evidence did not support disqualification |
| Whether ordinary negligence or isolated error can support misconduct finding | Taylor: isolated mistake or good-faith error is not misconduct | DHS: the disclosure was deliberate disregard of policy | Held: ordinary negligence/good-faith errors are insufficient; must show deliberate or recurrent wrongful intent |
| Who bears burden to prove misconduct | Taylor: DHS must prove misconduct by preponderance | DHS: (asserted it met its burden via policy violation) | Court: DHS bore the burden and failed to meet it |
| Whether prior training or discipline established knowledge of prohibition | Taylor: she had no actual notice she needed to redact for a grievance; no prior discipline for confidentiality breaches | DHS: mandatory online training established knowledge of policy | Court: evidence did not show Taylor knew her actions were in disregard of DHS’s interests; training alone insufficient here |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Dir., 470 S.W.3d 277 (Ark. App. 2015) (defines misconduct standard for unemployment benefits)
- Rockin J Ranch, LLC v. Dir., 469 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. App. 2015) (burden on employer to prove misconduct)
- Follett v. Dir., 530 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. App. 2017) (employer must prove misconduct by preponderance)
- Hubbard v. Dir., 460 S.W.3d 294 (Ark. App. 2015) (isolated negligence not misconduct)
- Sandy v. Dir., 542 S.W.3d 870 (Ark. App. 2018) (reversing misconduct finding where evidence insufficient)