Wilson v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
2017 Ark. App. 171
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jimmy Wilson, a 40-year CenterPoint Energy employee and service technician, responded to a vehicle striking a gas riser that created a blowing gas leak near a trailer home.
- Company written policies prohibited working in a gaseous atmosphere without backup assistance and required supervisor permission before entering such atmospheres.
- Wilson went into the gaseous atmosphere alone, plugged the riser citing emergency conditions and agreement from police and fire personnel, then called his supervisor.
- CenterPoint investigated; Wilson admitted he entered without supervisor permission and said he "just didn’t" call because he made a "snap decision." He was discharged for violating safety policy.
- The Appeal Tribunal and Arkansas Board of Review found Wilson was discharged for misconduct under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(b) and denied unemployment benefits; Wilson appealed to the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson) | Defendant's Argument (CenterPoint/Director) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson’s unilateral entry into a gaseous atmosphere constituted misconduct disqualifying him from unemployment benefits | Wilson acted in an emergency to protect public safety; his conduct was a good-faith snap decision, not intentional misconduct | Wilson violated clear, bona fide written safety rules and admitted failing to obtain required supervisor permission; this is misconduct | The court held Wilson’s conduct was misconduct and affirmed the denial of benefits |
| Whether employer met its burden to prove misconduct by a preponderance of evidence | Wilson claims lack of wrongful intent and necessity excused his conduct | Employer points to written rules and Wilson’s admission he failed to follow them | The court found substantial evidence (policy + admission) supported employer’s burden and affirmed |
| Whether misconduct requires intentional or deliberate violation and if that standard was met here | Wilson argues misconduct requires wrongful intent and his actions were reasonable emergency judgment | Employer argues intentional violation is satisfied by deliberate entry without permission despite knowing the rule | Court concluded Wilson’s admission of deliberate entry without permission met the misconduct standard |
| Whether awarding benefits would contradict unemployment statute’s protective purpose | Wilson argues awarding benefits aligns with protective purpose because he did not prefer benefits to work and acted to protect public safety | Employer contends enforcing rules and disqualifying for violations furthers statute’s intent to bar those discharged for misconduct | Court sided with employer; enforcing safety rule violation justified disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrett v. Cline, 257 Ark. 829, 520 S.W.2d 281 (Ark. 1975) (unemployment statute aimed at protecting fund from those preferring benefits to work)
- Willis Johnson Co. v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 795, 601 S.W.2d 890 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980) (misconduct provision should be applied to clear instances of misconduct)
- Thomas v. Director, 55 Ark. App. 101, 931 S.W.2d 146 (Ark. Ct. App. 1996) (appellate review not merely ratification; court may reverse Board in proper cases)
- Clark v. Director, 83 Ark. App. 308, 126 S.W.3d 728 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (court’s review of Board decisions is not a rubber stamp)
- Hubbard v. Director, 2015 Ark. App. 235, 460 S.W.3d 294 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (misconduct requires more than ordinary negligence; requires intentional or willful disregard)
- Moody v. Director, 2014 Ark. App. 137, 432 S.W.3d 157 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (defines elements of misconduct under unemployment law)