{
  "id": 6136657,
  "name": "Debra CARPENTER v. DIRECTOR of Arkansas Employment Security Department and Stark Manufacturing, Inc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carpenter v. Director of Arkansas Employment Security Department",
  "decision_date": "1996-09-25",
  "docket_number": "E 94-307",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "42",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ark. App. 39"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "929 S.W.2d 177"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "600 S.W.2d 427",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1712462
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/269/0714-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 Ark. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ark. App. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6655473
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/45/0099-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-515",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "603 S.W.2d 907",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1709282
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/270/0190-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 Ark. App. 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ark. App. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6140277
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/42/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ark. App. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6141861
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/28/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-513",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "a"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 359,
    "char_count": 5436,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.799,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2833511036743465e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6181395131530835
    },
    "sha256": "9600af1e6425f96c6244e023048efbc65bc21f805e27804a1f0693bddb4814e4",
    "simhash": "1:27efc8cefcb4eafb",
    "word_count": 872
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:16.845649+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mayfield and Rogers, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Debra CARPENTER v. DIRECTOR of Arkansas Employment Security Department and Stark Manufacturing, Inc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OlXY NEAL, Judge.\nAppellant Debra Carpenter appeals a decision of the Arkansas Board of Review which affirmed a decision of the Appeal Tribunal and an earlier determination by the Arkansas Employment Security Department that appellant should be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-513 (a) (1987). We believe that the Board of Review\u2019s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and should be reversed.\nAt the Appeal Tribunal hearing, Ms. Carpenter testified that after she had worked at Starks Manufacturing for three or four months, she was notified that appellee intended to close its plant in Ozark, Arkansas. According to appellant, she refused reassignment to the facility located at Paris because the transfer would require additional driving. Appellant\u2019s family had only one automobile and Starks did not offer to increase its employees\u2019 rate of compensation. Appellant also found the $3.00 a day for sixty days\u2019 travel expenses offered by Stark insufficient to cover the additional travel expenses that would be generated. Ms. Carpenter stated that prior to the closure of the Ozark plant, she only drove ten miles to work, one-way, and that accepting the reassignment would necessitate at least sixty miles of driving daily, much of which would be on narrow, winding mountainous roads, sometimes in inclement weather. Finally, appellant Carpenter testified that, although the employer intimated to its employees that they would remain eligible for unemployment benefits should they not accept the reassignment, the employer denied such statements and controverted all claims for benefits. Ms. Carpenter\u2019s last day of work for appellee was August 25, 1994, the day Stark\u2019s Ozark facility was closed.\nOn appeal, we review the findings of the Board in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, only reversing where the Board\u2019s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Roberson v. Director of Labor, 28 Ark. App. 337, 775 S.W.2d 82 (1989). Here the Board found that appellant left her last work for reasons which do not constitute good cause in connection with the work and that appellant\u2019s decision not to commute to the new location constituted failure to accept suitable work when offered without good cause.\nGood cause has been defined as:\n[A] cause that would reasonably impel the average able-bodied, qualified worker to give up his or her employment. (Citation omitted). It is dependent not only on the good faith of the employee involved, which includes the presence of a genuine desire to work and to be self-supporting, but also on the reaction of the average employee.\nPerdrix-Wang v. Director, 42 Ark. App. 218, 856 S.W.2d 636 (1993). Similarly, good cause has also been found to mean:\nA justifiable reason for not accepting the particular job offered. In other words, to constitute good cause, the reason for refusal must not be arbitrary or capricious and the reasons must be connected with the work itself.... [T]he question of good cause must be determined in the light of the facts in each case.\nWacaster v. Daniels, 270 Ark. App. 190, 603 S.W.2d 907 (1980). The fact that Ms. Carpenter continued to work for appellee through the day the Ozark plant closed, forecloses any finding of substantial evidence to support a finding that she left her last work for reasons which do not constitute good cause in connection with the work.\nAlthough the relevant statute, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-10-515 establishes the distance of available work from a claimant\u2019s residence as a relevant factor in consideration of whether a claimant has refused suitable employment, our case law has not established a bright-line test for determining what distance is unreasonable. We acknowledged in Rowlett v. Director, 45 Ark. App. 99, 872 S.W.2d 83 (1994), that, \u201cunder normal conditions, a distance of several hundred miles between home and work would make commuting unreasonable,\u201d but, on the other hand, held in Roberson v. Director of Labor, 28 Ark. App. 337, 775 S.W.2d 82 (1989), that a fifteen-mile commute was not unreasonable. We note that the issue of distance may not be isolated from other relevant factors, including the economic impact of the commute on the particular claimant. See Jackson v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 74, 600 S.W.2d 427 (1980).\nIn the case before us, in addition to the increased distance of travel necessitated by appellee, there was evidence that commuting employees would have to undertake the additional safety hazard presented by the inherent condition of the roads in the area. Also, appellant earned only $5.25 an hour and presented evidence that after the initial sixty days of compensation at $3.00 a day for travel expenses, the increased costs of gasoline would reduce the amount of her take-home. Based on those factors, we hold that the Board\u2019s findings that Ms. Carpenter left her last work for reasons that do not constitute good cause in connection with the work and that her decision not to commute constituted failure to accept suitable work when offered without good cause are not supported by substantial evidence.\nReversed.\nMayfield and Rogers, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "OlXY NEAL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeannie L. Denniston, for appellant.",
      "Allan Pruitt, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Debra CARPENTER v. DIRECTOR of Arkansas Employment Security Department and Stark Manufacturing, Inc.\nE 94-307\n929 S.W.2d 177\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered September 25, 1996\nJeannie L. Denniston, for appellant.\nAllan Pruitt, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 68
}