Zenaro v. Director, Department of Workforce Services
2017 Ark. App. 290
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Paul Zenaro worked six years as a merchant-account representative for Entertainment (L); he was reassigned from Fayetteville to St. Louis and commuted weekly, incurring travel costs.
- Employer issued two written warnings and placed Zenaro on a performance-improvement plan for low sales revenue; he later exceeded the plan goals but was discharged for poor performance on September 16, 2016.
- Zenaro filed for unemployment benefits; the Department denied his claim and the denial was appealed to the Appeal Tribunal and the Arkansas Board of Review (Board).
- The Appeal Tribunal (employer absent) found Zenaro intentionally violated employer rules and disregarded employer interests by failing to meet sales goals despite progressive discipline; the Board affirmed.
- Zenaro appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, arguing the Board’s misconduct finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
- The Court reviewed whether the evidence could reasonably support an intentional-misconduct finding given statutory and precedential standards limiting misconduct to intentional or culpable conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was for misconduct connected with work (intentional poor performance) | Zenaro: poor sales were due to reassignment, travel burden, and inability to offset costs — not intentional misconduct | Director/Employer: progressive discipline and failure to meet goals show intentional disregard of employer interests and rules | Court: Reversed — substantial evidence did not support an intent-to-misconduct finding; benefits awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- McAteer v. Dir., Dep’t of Workforce Servs., 481 S.W.3d 776 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review and substantial-evidence test in unemployment appeals)
- Law Offices of Craig L. Cook v. Dir., 431 S.W.3d 337 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (employer bears burden to prove misconduct; intent requirement)
- Burch v. Bassett, 503 S.W.3d 852 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (misconduct is a factual question for the Board)
- Warren v. Dir., [citation="(2013)" ] (Ark. Ct. App.) (Mere inefficiency, poor performance, or good-faith errors are not misconduct)