Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 380 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. E-24-240
ARKANSAS FAMILY SUPPORTS, INC. Opinion Delivered June 4, 2025
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2024-BR-01070]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES; AND CHRISTIE WHITE APPELLEES AFFIRMED
CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge
Arkansas Family Supports, Inc. (“AFS”), appeals the decision of the Arkansas Board
of Review (“the Board”) determining that Christie White was eligible for unemployment
benefits. On appeal, AFS argues that the Board erred in finding that White was discharged
from last work for reasons other than misconduct in connection with the work.
White began working as a direct support professional supervisor for AFS on August
24, 2021. AFS terminated White on July 23, 2024, for alleged misconduct, and she applied
for unemployment benefits on July 29. The Division of Workforce Services (“the Division”)
issued a notice of agency determination on September 25 finding that White was eligible to
receive benefits because AFS failed to present sufficient evidence that she had been terminated for misconduct under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-514(a) (Repl.
2012).
AFS appealed the Division’s decision to the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal (“the
Tribunal”). The Tribunal held a telephone hearing regarding AFS’s appeal on November 5,
2024, at which White and Sam Clayton, the director of human resources at AFS, testified.
According to Clayton, White had received multiple verbal and written warnings before her
termination. A written warning from April 2022 involved White’s improperly rescheduling
direct support professionals (“DSPs”) and their caseloads. This warning was followed by a
verbal warning in August 2022 after she spoke to a DSP in an unprofessional manner; at
that time, White admitted her behavior and apologized for her actions. White received
another verbal warning in May 2024 after she did not act in a reasonable time to investigate
a concern regarding an AFS member.
Clayton testified that White was fired after AFS received complaints about her
behavior at a training seminar in July 2024. Coworkers reported that White complained
about not being paid to attend the seminar and asserted that upper management treated
workers unfairly. White also made negative comments about coworkers and said that it was
the supervisors who needed to attend the training. White called out another coworker as
“dead weight” who dragged the team down. Other reports were that White had her back to
the speaker at one point, went outside to get a cushion to sit on, and sat with her feet up on
another chair during the training. At a subsequent staff meeting to discuss what had
happened at the training, White denied behaving unprofessionally. Following that meeting,
2 Clayton and other supervisors decided to “pursue employee separation with [White] based
on this incident and past performance and conduct issues.” Clayton testified at the hearing
before the Tribunal that White’s termination was “[the] totality of events that took place
from [her] initial hire up to that last training in July. . . . [I]t was a collection of all of those
things that [caused] her [to] be seen as stirring up negativity and––and not following
directives of the director of the program’s department.”
During her testimony, White addressed the warnings she received from her employer.
Regarding the allegations that she made negative comments about upper management at July
2024 seminar, she said she actually commented that she wished a supervisor could have come
for team-building purposes. White suggested that this was the statement that probably
angered her manager to the point of wanting to fire her.
White’s performance evaluations were also introduced into the record before the
Tribunal. Each of the evaluations––dated December 2021, November 2023, and March
2024––reflected that White “meets standards” in every category assessed. While there were
comments about some negative aspects of her job performance, the evaluations also
commented that White “cares greatly about her members and staff,” “has a wealth of
experience and job knowledge,” and “has developed and maintains a healthy working
relationship with all outside . . . providers.”
Following the hearing, the Tribunal entered a decision reversing the Division’s
determination that White was entitled to benefits. The Tribunal reasoned that although
White received progressive coaching about her job duties and performance, she did not
3 improve. The Tribunal cited the negative complaints about White stemming from the July
2024 training and concluded that White was discharged from last work for misconduct in
connection with the work.
White timely appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Board, which reversed the
Tribunal’s denial of benefits. The Board acknowledged White’s verbal and written
disciplinary actions but also pointed out her “generally favorable” performance evaluations,
including the March 2024 evaluation that concluded she had met all ten performance
standards only four months before her termination. The Board acknowledged that White
“engaged in conduct during training that was unsatisfactory to her employer” but determined
that the “proof is insufficient to find that [White] acted with intent to harm her employer’s
interests or violated known policies of her employer prior to discharge.” The Board therefore
concluded that White was discharged from last work for reasons other than misconduct in
connection with the work. The Board reversed the Tribunal’s decision and found that White
was “allowed benefits if otherwise in compliance with the law.” AFS timely appealed the
Board’s decision.
Our standard of review in unemployment-insurance cases is well settled. We do not
conduct de novo reviews in appeals from the Board. Dillinger v. Dir., 2020 Ark. App. 138,
596 S.W.3d 62. Instead, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible
therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board’s findings of fact. Rockin J Ranch, LLC v.
Dir., 2015 Ark. App. 465, 469 S.W.3d 368. We accept the Board’s findings of fact as
conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, which is such relevant evidence that a
4 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. Even when there is
evidence on which the Board might have reached a different decision, our scope of judicial
review is limited to a determination of whether the Board could have reasonably reached the
decision rendered on the basis of the evidence presented. Keener v. Dir., 2021 Ark. App. 88,
618 S.W.3d 446. We defer credibility calls to the Board as the finder of fact as well as the
weight to be accorded to testimony presented to the Board. Daniels v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App.
32, 660 S.W.3d 320.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-514(a)(1) provides that “an individual shall
be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if he or she is discharged from his or
her last work for misconduct in connection with the work.” Misconduct in connection with
the work includes the violation of any behavioral policies of the employer, as distinguished
from deficiencies in meeting production standards or accomplishing job duties. Ark. Code
Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(3)(A). This includes, without limitation, disregard of an established
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 380 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. E-24-240
ARKANSAS FAMILY SUPPORTS, INC. Opinion Delivered June 4, 2025
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2024-BR-01070]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES; AND CHRISTIE WHITE APPELLEES AFFIRMED
CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge
Arkansas Family Supports, Inc. (“AFS”), appeals the decision of the Arkansas Board
of Review (“the Board”) determining that Christie White was eligible for unemployment
benefits. On appeal, AFS argues that the Board erred in finding that White was discharged
from last work for reasons other than misconduct in connection with the work.
White began working as a direct support professional supervisor for AFS on August
24, 2021. AFS terminated White on July 23, 2024, for alleged misconduct, and she applied
for unemployment benefits on July 29. The Division of Workforce Services (“the Division”)
issued a notice of agency determination on September 25 finding that White was eligible to
receive benefits because AFS failed to present sufficient evidence that she had been terminated for misconduct under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-514(a) (Repl.
2012).
AFS appealed the Division’s decision to the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal (“the
Tribunal”). The Tribunal held a telephone hearing regarding AFS’s appeal on November 5,
2024, at which White and Sam Clayton, the director of human resources at AFS, testified.
According to Clayton, White had received multiple verbal and written warnings before her
termination. A written warning from April 2022 involved White’s improperly rescheduling
direct support professionals (“DSPs”) and their caseloads. This warning was followed by a
verbal warning in August 2022 after she spoke to a DSP in an unprofessional manner; at
that time, White admitted her behavior and apologized for her actions. White received
another verbal warning in May 2024 after she did not act in a reasonable time to investigate
a concern regarding an AFS member.
Clayton testified that White was fired after AFS received complaints about her
behavior at a training seminar in July 2024. Coworkers reported that White complained
about not being paid to attend the seminar and asserted that upper management treated
workers unfairly. White also made negative comments about coworkers and said that it was
the supervisors who needed to attend the training. White called out another coworker as
“dead weight” who dragged the team down. Other reports were that White had her back to
the speaker at one point, went outside to get a cushion to sit on, and sat with her feet up on
another chair during the training. At a subsequent staff meeting to discuss what had
happened at the training, White denied behaving unprofessionally. Following that meeting,
2 Clayton and other supervisors decided to “pursue employee separation with [White] based
on this incident and past performance and conduct issues.” Clayton testified at the hearing
before the Tribunal that White’s termination was “[the] totality of events that took place
from [her] initial hire up to that last training in July. . . . [I]t was a collection of all of those
things that [caused] her [to] be seen as stirring up negativity and––and not following
directives of the director of the program’s department.”
During her testimony, White addressed the warnings she received from her employer.
Regarding the allegations that she made negative comments about upper management at July
2024 seminar, she said she actually commented that she wished a supervisor could have come
for team-building purposes. White suggested that this was the statement that probably
angered her manager to the point of wanting to fire her.
White’s performance evaluations were also introduced into the record before the
Tribunal. Each of the evaluations––dated December 2021, November 2023, and March
2024––reflected that White “meets standards” in every category assessed. While there were
comments about some negative aspects of her job performance, the evaluations also
commented that White “cares greatly about her members and staff,” “has a wealth of
experience and job knowledge,” and “has developed and maintains a healthy working
relationship with all outside . . . providers.”
Following the hearing, the Tribunal entered a decision reversing the Division’s
determination that White was entitled to benefits. The Tribunal reasoned that although
White received progressive coaching about her job duties and performance, she did not
3 improve. The Tribunal cited the negative complaints about White stemming from the July
2024 training and concluded that White was discharged from last work for misconduct in
connection with the work.
White timely appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Board, which reversed the
Tribunal’s denial of benefits. The Board acknowledged White’s verbal and written
disciplinary actions but also pointed out her “generally favorable” performance evaluations,
including the March 2024 evaluation that concluded she had met all ten performance
standards only four months before her termination. The Board acknowledged that White
“engaged in conduct during training that was unsatisfactory to her employer” but determined
that the “proof is insufficient to find that [White] acted with intent to harm her employer’s
interests or violated known policies of her employer prior to discharge.” The Board therefore
concluded that White was discharged from last work for reasons other than misconduct in
connection with the work. The Board reversed the Tribunal’s decision and found that White
was “allowed benefits if otherwise in compliance with the law.” AFS timely appealed the
Board’s decision.
Our standard of review in unemployment-insurance cases is well settled. We do not
conduct de novo reviews in appeals from the Board. Dillinger v. Dir., 2020 Ark. App. 138,
596 S.W.3d 62. Instead, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible
therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board’s findings of fact. Rockin J Ranch, LLC v.
Dir., 2015 Ark. App. 465, 469 S.W.3d 368. We accept the Board’s findings of fact as
conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, which is such relevant evidence that a
4 reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. Even when there is
evidence on which the Board might have reached a different decision, our scope of judicial
review is limited to a determination of whether the Board could have reasonably reached the
decision rendered on the basis of the evidence presented. Keener v. Dir., 2021 Ark. App. 88,
618 S.W.3d 446. We defer credibility calls to the Board as the finder of fact as well as the
weight to be accorded to testimony presented to the Board. Daniels v. Dir., 2023 Ark. App.
32, 660 S.W.3d 320.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-514(a)(1) provides that “an individual shall
be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if he or she is discharged from his or
her last work for misconduct in connection with the work.” Misconduct in connection with
the work includes the violation of any behavioral policies of the employer, as distinguished
from deficiencies in meeting production standards or accomplishing job duties. Ark. Code
Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(3)(A). This includes, without limitation, disregard of an established
bona fide written rule known to the employee or a willful disregard of the employer’s interest.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(3)(B)(i)–(ii).
Mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result
of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies, ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-
faith errors in judgment or discretion do not rise to the level of misconduct. City of Fort Smith
v. Dir., 2024 Ark. App. 606, 704 S.W.3d 143. 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. See also Bright v. Dir., 2021 Ark. App.
5 217, at 3, 625 S.W.3d 720, 722 (“There is an element of intent associated with a
determination of misconduct.”). It is the employer’s burden to establish misconduct by a
preponderance of the evidence. Hopkins v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 84, 571 S.W.3d 524.
Whether an employee’s behavior is misconduct that justifies the denial of unemployment
benefits is a question of fact for the Board to decide. Id.
On appeal, AFS argues that the Board erred in finding that White was discharged for
reasons other than misconduct associated with the work. AFS argues that the record shows
that White received progressive discipline regarding her job duties and engaged in
misconduct. It cites her “negative remarks to others in training” and asserts those negative
remarks to third parties “constitute a willful disregard of [her] employer’s interest.” It further
points to her behavior at the training seminar, including facing the wall away from the
speaker and putting her feet up on a chair. It complains that she had a history of “stirring
up negativity” and “making the workplace a toxic environment.”
Citing Stark v. Director, 2024 Ark. App. 86, 684 S.W.3d 323, AFS asserts that White
“refused to engage in progressive coaching by refusing to sign the employee discipline forms.”
In Stark, this court held that an employee’s failure to attend a disciplinary meeting can
constitute misconduct. In that case, however, Stark had been told she would be fired if she
refused to attend the meeting, although Stark herself denied being given such an ultimatum.
This court affirmed the Board’s denial of unemployment benefits, noting that the resolution
of inconsistent testimony is a matter for the Board. Stark, 2024 Ark. App. 86, at 9, 684
S.W.3d at 329.
6 More analogous is Follett v. Director, 2017 Ark. App. 505, 530 S.W.3d 884, in which
this court reversed a finding of misconduct for refusal to sign a reprimand when there was
no policy against refusing to do so, and the employee was never warned that her refusal
would result in disciplinary action. AFS does not point to any testimony that would support
a conclusion that White was aware of a company policy that refusing to sign a reprimand
would constitute misconduct.
The Board responds to AFS’s arguments by pointing out that, although there was
evidence that White received disciplinary actions, she also received positive job-performance
evaluations in 2023 and 2024, and one of those positive evaluations occurred after two of
the earlier disciplinary actions. The Board notes that her disciplinary actions––which
involved scheduling issues, her handling of a dispute between two other employees, and her
failure to promptly investigate a complaint––“appear to be based on inefficiencies, or
ordinary negligence” and not on any malicious conduct on her part. Finally, the Board notes
that the statements of other employees regarding White’s conduct at the training seminar
were conflicting, with some of the witness statements indicating that her conduct was not as
egregious as AFS had alleged.
We agree with the Board. We acknowledge that there was evidence tending to show
that White engaged in unsatisfactory conduct and that her employer was clearly unhappy
with her behavior. Mere unsatisfactory conduct, however, if not of such a degree or
recurrence as to manifest “wrongful intent, evil design, or an intentional disregard of the
employer’s interest,” is not considered misconduct. City of Fort Smith, supra. The Board’s
7 decision that White did not engage in misconduct is therefore supportable on the evidence
before it. The Board resolved conflicting evidence and testimony in favor of White, and
AFS’s arguments essentially consist of a request for this court to reweigh the evidence in its
favor, which we will not do. See Broom v. Dir., 2022 Ark. App. 305. We therefore affirm the
Affirmed.
ABRAMSON and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Robertson, Beasley, Shipley & Robinson, PLLC, by: Christopher J. Hooks, for appellant.
Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for separate appellee Director,
Division of Workforce Services.