{ "id": 6136307, "name": "BOARD of TRUSTEES of the University of Arkansas v. Artee WILLIAMS, Director Employment Security Department and Tena R. Farver", "name_abbreviation": "Board of Trustees v. Williams", "decision_date": "2005-04-27", "docket_number": "E 04-216", "first_page": "38", "last_page": "42", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "91 Ark. App. 38" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "207 S.W.3d 569" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "21 Va. Cir. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va. Cir.", "case_ids": [ 3883489 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "109" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va-cir/21/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ark. App. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141755 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/83/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ark. App. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142474 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/71/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. App. 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137660 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/73/0086-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ark. App. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142334 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/74/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 Ark. 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875402 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/289/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ark. App. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137356 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/67/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 Ark. App. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136253 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/67/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Ark. App. 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136882 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/58/0058-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 Ark. App. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138848 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/61/0139-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 448, "char_count": 7282, "ocr_confidence": 0.813, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.17484378432873884 }, "sha256": "7df5e7555cdb69c47087ce07be7178cc4bd37b421e1ff69bb0690d6de32f1a67", "simhash": "1:392bd9906196f66a", "word_count": 1141 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:09:43.302028+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Crabtree and Roaf, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "BOARD of TRUSTEES of the University of Arkansas v. Artee WILLIAMS, Director Employment Security Department and Tena R. Farver" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Olly Neal, Judge.\nThe Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas appeals from the Board of Review\u2019s determination that appellee, Tena Farver, was discharged from her last work for reasons other than misconduct in connection with the work. For reversal, appellant questions whether the Board of Review\u2019s determination that appellee was discharged from her last job for reasons other than misconduct in connection with her work is supported by substantial evidence. We hold that Farver was discharged from her last work for reasons other than misconduct in connection with her work, and, therefore, we affirm the decision of the Board of Review.\nTena Farver worked for the University of Arkansas as a family-nutrition assistant assigned to teach basic nutrition to low-income families. The position required that she enlist seventy-five families in the program; Farver had only enlisted fifty-two. In a letter dated November 18, 2003, Farver was notified that her position would be terminated on December 18, 2003, due to her low enrollment numbers. Following the issuance of the letter, Joyce Whittington, a County Extension Agent serving as staff chair, conducted an audit of Farver\u2019s records subsequent to November 18, 2003, and determined that Farver had falsified records during this period, in that she claimed to have worked with families at addresses that did not exist. Whittington then fired Farver for falsifying records before the termination date given to Farver. At the hearing before the Appeals Tribunal, Farver admitted to falsifying records. Further, Whittington testified at the hearing that \u201cMs. Farver was discharged because she did not enroll a sufficient number of families.\u201d The Appeals Tribunal determined that appellee had been discharged for misconduct in connection with the work due to her dishonesty. The Board of Review reversed that finding and awarded Farver benefits. This appeal followed.\nIn unemployment compensation cases, findings of fact by the Board are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, and review by this court is limited to determining whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon the evidence before it. Hiner v. Director, 61 Ark. App. 139, 965 S.W.2d 785 (1998). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Rollins v. Director, 58 Ark. App. 58, 945 S.W.2d 410 (1997). This court reviews the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in a light most favorable to the Board\u2019s findings. Barber v. Director, 67 Ark. App. 20, 992 S.W.2d 159 (1999). We do not conduct a de novo review of the evidence in an appeal from a Board decision. Hiner, supra. Even when there is evidence upon which the Board might have reached a different decision, the scope of judicial review is limited to a determination of whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon the evidence before it. Niece v. Director, 67 Ark. App. 109, 992 S.W.2d 169 (1999). An administrative agency, like a jury, is free to believe or disbelieve any witness, and the appellate court gives the evidence its strongest probative force to support the administrative decision. Singleton v. Smith, 289 Ark. 577, 715 S.W.2d 437 (1986).\nArkansas Code Annotated section ll-10-514(a)(l) (Repl. 2002) allows the Director of the Arkansas Employment Security Department to disqualify an individual for benefits if he is discharged from his employment for misconduct connected with the work. Misconduct, as used in this section involves (1) disregard of the employer\u2019s interests, (2) violation of the employer\u2019s rules, (3) disregard of the standards of behavior that the employer has a right to expect of his employees, and (4) disregard of the employee\u2019s duties and obligations to his employer. Walls v. Director, 74 Ark. App. 424, 49 S.W.3d 670 (2001). To constitute misconduct, more is required than mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies, ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith error in judgment or discretion; there must be an intentional or deliberate violation, a willful or wanton disregard, or carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest wrongful intent or evil design. Fleming v. Director, 73 Ark. App. 86, 40 S.W.3d 820 (2001); Love v. Director, 71 Ark. App. 396, 30 S.W.3d 750 (2000); Niece v. Director, supra.\nThere are no Arkansas cases that address this very issue, although Bradford v. Director, 83 Ark. App. 332, 128 S.W.3d 20 (2003), provides us with some guidance. Bradford, who was hired as the Executive Chief Information Officer for the State of Arkansas, gave two weeks\u2019 notice of his intention to end his employment with the State by submitting a letter of resignation to Governor Huckabee. Thereafter, Bradford was notified by the governor\u2019s chief of staff that the governor had directed her to terminate Bradford\u2019s employment that very day. Bradford sought benefits. Our court affirmed the Board of Review\u2019s denial of benefits to Bradford upon determination that Bradford had voluntarily left his work without good cause. In making this holding, we determined that the Board of Review clearly could have viewed Bradford\u2019s resignation letter as a clear and unequivocal manifestation of his intention to leave his job with the State.\nIn Batal Builders, Inc. v. Polonica, 21 Va. Cir. 107 (1990), Polonica was discharged from her employment. Subsequent to the discharge it was discovered that she misappropriated company funds. Polonica applied for and received unemployment benefits; Batal appealed. The circuit court held that \u201cmisconduct discovered after an employee is discharged is irrelevant to the question of whether the employee is eligible for benefits because the conduct complained of was not the basis for discharge as required under the governing statute.\u201d 21 Va. Cir. at 109. Although not binding on this court, we find this case highly persuasive in making our determination.\nSimilarly, Farver received, on November 19, 2003, a letter dated November 18, 2003, informing her that her job would end on December 18, 2003. Whittington testified that her audit took place November 24 through November 28, after appellant informed Farver that she was being terminated. It was during this audit that the misconduct (falsifying of records) was discovered. The Board of Review clearly could have viewed appellant\u2019s letter of termination to Farver as a clear and unequivocal manifestation of its intention to terminate Farver\u2019s employment for the reason stated in the letter \u2014 Farver\u2019s inability \u201cto reach the minimum number of enrolled families.\u201d Therefore, appellant can not use its subsequent finding of misconduct as a basis to prevent Farver from obtaining unemployment benefits. Accordingly, because substantial evidence supports the decision of the Board of Review, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nCrabtree and Roaf, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Olly Neal, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Melissa K. Rust, for appellant.", "Phyllis Edwards, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BOARD of TRUSTEES of the University of Arkansas v. Artee WILLIAMS, Director Employment Security Department and Tena R. Farver\nE 04-216\n207 S.W.3d 569\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 27, 2005\nMelissa K. Rust, for appellant.\nPhyllis Edwards, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0038-01", "first_page_order": 60, "last_page_order": 64 }