{
  "id": 6141275,
  "name": "Floyd BARKER v. Dewey STILES, Director of Labor, and EICHLEAY CORPORATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barker v. Stiles",
  "decision_date": "1983-10-12",
  "docket_number": "E 83-90",
  "first_page": "273",
  "last_page": "275",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ark. App. 273"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "658 S.W.2d 416"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "270 Ark. 766",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1709299
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/270/0766-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 2967,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.855,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.662170294177528e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5284628563286894
    },
    "sha256": "f7393ac58b5ad686836411ed470b0dd157cf14fc8c9b7b533fe71cfb90bad01e",
    "simhash": "1:81893810ceb67bbd",
    "word_count": 500
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:18.031409+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glaze and Cracraft, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Floyd BARKER v. Dewey STILES, Director of Labor, and EICHLEAY CORPORATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lawson Cloninger, Judge.\nThe appellant, Floyd Barker, was denied unemployment compensation benefits by a decision of the Arkansas Board of Review on the finding that appellant quit his job without good cause connected with the work. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1106 (a).\nThe decision of the Board of Review is not supported by substantial evidence and we reverse.\nAppellant had been a laborer for the employer, appellee Eichleay Corporation, for seven months prior to the day he quit on October 22, 1982. Appellant and his witness, who was also an employee of appellee, testified at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge. No evidence was offered in behalf of the employer, either by written statement or by testimony at the hearing.\nAppellant testified that he was getting more than his share of the unpleasant jobs. He talked to the foreman about it and the foreman told him \u201c... that\u2019s the way it is and that\u2019s the way it\u2019s going to be.\u201d Appellant\u2019s witness testified as follows:\nAh, Floyd Barker had a labor foreman, Bill Ledbetter, who was very prejudiced against colored people. When this incident happened, right after it happened I went up and talked to Bill Ledbetter to try to get Floyd on my crew. Bill Ledbetter said I\u2019m surprised he last this long, he said I\u2019ve given him every dirty job there is and I said well if you like to I\u2019ll take him on my crew. He\u2019s a good laborer and he can help carpenters. He said the only place his black ass is going is to the house, that\u2019s what he said.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 81-1106 (a), supra, provides that an individual is disqualified for benefits if he voluntarily leaves his last work without good cause connected with the work.\nThe standard in determining good cause is set out in Teel v. Daniels, 270 Ark. 766, 606 S.W.2d 151 (1980), as a cause which would reasonably impel the average able-bodied qualified worker to, in good faith, give up his or her employment. Teel also states that another element in determining good cause is whether the employee took appropriate steps to prevent the mistreatment from continuing.\nThe evidence indicates that appellant was singled out for the most distasteful jobs, and the clear inference is that his foreman was deliberately seeking to drive him from his job. Appellant\u2019s evidence of mistreatment is unrefuted, and there is no evidence of bad faith on his part. Appellant attempted to prevent the mistreatment from continuing by talking to his foreman about it, but was rebuffed. He was given the choice of accepting continued mistreatment or being fired. We believe claimant reasonably determined that his situation was impossible to resolve.\nThe decision of the Board of Review denying claimant benefits is reversed.\nGlaze and Cracraft, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lawson Cloninger, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Thelma Lorenzo, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Floyd BARKER v. Dewey STILES, Director of Labor, and EICHLEAY CORPORATION\nE 83-90\n658 S.W.2d 416\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered October 12, 1983\nAppellant, pro se.\nThelma Lorenzo, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0273-01",
  "first_page_order": 297,
  "last_page_order": 299
}