Voss v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
2015 Ark. App. 521
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Paul Voss, a 14‑year maintenance superintendent at Magnolia Housing Authority (MHA), quit on May 19, 2014 and applied for unemployment benefits.
- He claimed he left because of a "hostile work environment" and harassment by supervisor Richard Wyse; he did not discuss his concerns with Wyse before resigning and left a resignation letter on Wyse’s desk.
- In February 2014 Voss tested positive for hydrocodone under a new drug‑testing policy; he was suspended March–May, paid for that period, and returned to work after providing no immediate doctor’s note verifying fitness for duty.
- Wyse required medical verification that Voss’s prescription would not create safety risks and temporarily restricted use of a housing‑authority vehicle until verification was provided.
- The Department disqualified Voss from unemployment benefits for voluntarily leaving without good cause; the Appeal Tribunal and Board of Review affirmed, finding Voss failed to prove unreasonable treatment or to take steps to preserve his employment.
- Voss argued the suspension, demotion of duties, and medical documentation requirement showed pervasive discrimination/retaliation and that seeking internal relief would have been futile; the Board found otherwise and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Voss's Argument | MHA/Director's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Voss voluntarily left without good cause connected to work | Hostile work environment, improper suspension/demotion, retaliatory conduct justified quitting; internal remedies would be futile | Voss resigned voluntarily shortly after return, never raised complaints to supervisor or board, and was asked only for reasonable medical verification | Affirmed: Voss left without good cause; substantial evidence supports disqualification |
| Whether employer’s actions amounted to unreasonable treatment compelling average worker to quit | Suspension and restrictions (vehicle/use) and scrutiny were pervasive and ratified by management/board | Actions were justified by positive drug test and safety concerns; employer paid suspension and permitted return | Held: Employer’s actions were reasonable; not sufficient to impel average worker to resign |
| Whether Voss made reasonable efforts to preserve employment rights before quitting | Argued internal remedies would be futile given alleged board ratification | Voss did not attempt to resolve issues with supervisor or board as allowed by policy | Held: Voss failed to make reasonable efforts; his failure to seek internal resolution supports disqualification |
| Credibility/weight of evidence | Voss’s testimony and assertions of hostility should control | Board may weigh credibility; employer testimony contradicted claims and showed accommodation | Held: Board’s credibility determinations upheld; substantial evidence supports the result |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Director, 2013 Ark. App. 361 (Ark. App. 2013) (standard of review—affirm where supported by substantial evidence)
- Ballard v. Director, 2012 Ark. App. 371 (Ark. App. 2012) (credibility and witness‑weight decisions are for the Board)
- Wilson v. Director, 2013 Ark. App. 276 (Ark. App. 2013) (definition of "good cause" and requirement to make reasonable efforts to preserve employment)