Williams v. Dir.
2013 Ark. App. 531
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Daniel Williams, a Walmart assistant manager since 1989, was discharged on October 4, 2012 after Walmart applied its progressive-discipline policy.
- Walmart placed Williams on a Personal Improvement Plan for poor judgment, lack of initiative, and poor organization; prior warnings in 2007, 2010, and 2012 were documented.
- The final coaching step was taken May 14, 2012; subsequent performance meetings occurred June 14, July 13, and July 23, with a 30-day period to improve beginning July 23.
- The specific incident leading to the last warning involved Williams reimbursing a customer for auto repairs without following company procedures; he later learned the bill was inaccurate.
- The Appeal Tribunal found Walmart followed its progressive-discipline policy and concluded Williams’s repeated poor performance, despite warnings, constituted intentional poor performance under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(d)(2).
- The Board of Review adopted the Appeal Tribunal’s decision; Williams appealed, arguing the statute requires repeated identical types of poor performance to show intent.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Walmart/Director's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeated, differing types of poor performance can establish intentional poor performance under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(d)(2) | The statute requires repeated acts of the same type to prove intent; differing types are insufficient | Repeated unsatisfactory conduct of differing types, coupled with progressive discipline, can demonstrate the requisite intent | The court held differing types of repeated poor performance may, when recurring despite progressive discipline, constitute intentional poor performance and misconduct for unemployment purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Trustees v. Williams, 91 Ark. App. 38, 207 S.W.3d 569 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (standard of review for Board of Review findings and definition of substantial evidence)