Worsham v. Bassett, 489 S.W.3d 162

Worsham, age-appropriate participant in AARP’s Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), was paid by AARP from a federal grant during the relevant base period (Apr. 1, 2013–Mar. 31, 2014).
She was moved to a host agency on July 7, 2014, her hourly pay was reduced, and she applied for unemployment benefits.
The Department denied benefits, finding she lacked qualifying wages because her only wages came from a nonprofit grant-funded work‑training program.
The Appeal Tribunal and the Arkansas Board of Review upheld the denial; the Board declined to accept additional evidence after the tribunal record per Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-525(c).
The court of appeals affirmed without opinion; the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed, holding that federal grant–funded work‑relief/work‑training is excluded from "employment" under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-210(a)(4), so her AARP wages did not qualify.
Worsham’s request for a further hearing and her equal‑protection challenge were rejected (equal‑protection not reached because it was not decided below/preserved).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Worsham’s AARP wages qualify under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-507(5)(A) to establish unemployment benefits	Worsham: her wages from AARP should count as qualifying wages	Bassett/Dept.: wages paid through a federal grant for a work‑training program are excluded from "employment" and thus are not qualifying wages	Court: Affirmed exclusion under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-210(a)(4); wages from federally assisted work‑relief/work‑training do not qualify
Whether the Board erred by refusing to accept additional evidence and hold a further hearing	Worsham: Board should have received her additional wage printouts and conducted another hearing	Dept./Board: Board lacked jurisdiction to accept new evidence outside the tribunal record under § 11-10-525(c)	Court: Board properly relied on the Appeal Tribunal record and statute; no error in refusing to accept additional evidence
Whether denial of a further hearing violated Worsham’s Equal Protection rights	Worsham: refusal denied her equal‑protection under the U.S. Constitution	Dept./Board: procedural/statutory rules applied neutrally; issue not litigated below	Court: Did not reach the constitutional claim because Board made no specific finding and the issue was not preserved for review

Blake v. Shellstrom, 424 S.W.3d 830 (Ark. 2012) (grant of review treated as if appeal originally filed in Supreme Court)
Rose v. Harbor E., 430 S.W.3d 773 (Ark. 2013) (statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo; plain language controls)
Mountain Pure, LLC v. Little Rock Wastewater Util., 383 S.W.3d 347 (Ark. 2011) (issues not raised below or decided by the agency are not preserved for appellate review)