Weinstein v. Director, Arkansas Department of Workforce Services
2013 Ark. App. 374
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Weinstein, an ADEQ attorney, challenged unemployment benefits after a Board-discounted finding of misconduct stemming from disciplinary actions in Dec 2010, Apr 2011, and May 2011.
- ADEQ used a progressive-discipline policy (Groups 1–3); Group 2 offenses stay active for two years, and two active Group 2 offenses justify dismissal.
- Dec 2010: Weinstein received a Group 1 reprimand and 10-day suspension for failing to route completed documents to her supervisor prior to dissemination.
- Apr 2011: Weinstein received a Group 2 reprimand and 90-day probation for an unsatisfactory brief filed near the deadline, evidencing time-management issues.
- May 2011: Weinstein received another Group 2 reprimand for failing to follow routing procedures and for not editing a document before director submission, leading to discharge after two active Group 2 offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether April and May 2011 incidents support misconduct independence from December 2010 | Weinstein argues Dec 2010 may not show misconduct; the later incidents alone should be evaluated separately. | Board properly relied on Apr/May 2011 conduct to find misconduct and willful disregard of employer's interests. | Yes; Board findings on Apr/May 2011 support misconduct independent of Dec 2010. |
| Whether two active Group 2 offenses justify discharge | Weinstein contends the two Group 2 offenses were not enough to establish misconduct given prior actions. | Discharge was proper due to accumulation of two active Group 2 offenses and willful disregard. | Yes; accumulation of two active Group 2 offenses supports discharge for misconduct. |
| Whether the Board’s characterization of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence | Board misinterpreted health issues and denied health-related context; insisted on willful disregard. | Credibility and weight of testimony supported Board's conclusion that actions were against employer's interests. | Yes; substantial evidence supports Board’s misconduct finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- George’s, Inc. v. Dir., 50 Ark.App. 77 (1995) (fact question of willful versus inadvertent conduct for unemployment)
- Johnson v. Dir., 84 Ark.App. 349 (2004) (misconduct requires more than good-faith errors or unsatisfactory conduct)
- Perry v. Gaddy, 48 Ark.App. 128 (1995) (standard for substantial evidence review in Board findings)
- Ballard v. Dir., 2012 Ark. App. 371 (2012) (credibility and weight of witness testimony are Board determinations)
- West v. Dir., 94 Ark.App. 381 (2006) (definition and scope of substantial evidence in Board review)