Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 458 Elizabeth Perry I attest to the accuracy and ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS integrity of this document DIVISION I 2023.07.19 10:48:41 -05'00' No. E-20-312 2023.003.20244 AUDREY JO RODERMUND Opinion Delivered November 17, 2021 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2020-BR-01258]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES AFFIRMED APPELLEE
STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge
Appellant Audrey Jo Rodermund appeals the Arkansas Board of Review’s (Board’s)
denial of unemployment benefits on a finding that she voluntarily left her job without good
cause. We affirm.
I. Background
Rodermund filed for unemployment benefits with the Arkansas Department of
Workforce Services (ADWS), and ADWS denied her claim. Rodermund appealed the
denial to the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal), and a Tribunal hearing officer held a
telephone hearing in August 2020. The employer did not participate in the hearing, leaving
Rodermund as the sole witness to provide testimony.
Rodermund testified that she worked for Teleflora for seven hours. She applied to
work for Teleflora after seeing an ad on Facebook. She had recently filed for unemployment
after being laid off due to COVID-19 from a sales job with MarketSource, Inc., whom she worked for from January 30 until April 18, 2020. She stated that she met the requirements
for the job—having a laptop that met certain specifications, a headset, and proper Wi-Fi
speed. Rodermund began training on April 27, 2020, on a web call with Teleflora. That
morning, she filled out and returned new-hire paperwork and in the afternoon downloaded
Citrix, a required program, to her computer. When she downloaded Citrix, her computer
stopped working. She called the IT department for assistance, and they had her delete the
Citrix program and reinstall it. It was at this point that the computer started crashing and
eventually “the computer just completely went black.” Rodermund was told that if she
could buy a new laptop that met the qualifications, she could still work. She never took
the laptop to a repair shop and did not purchase a laptop that would work with Teleflora’s
system. Rodermund testified that Teleflora sent her more information to electronically sign
so that she could get paid for the seven hours of training, but she refused to sign.
The Tribunal denied Rodermund’s request for benefits under Arkansas Code
Annotated § 11-10-513(a)(1) (Repl. 2013) after finding that Rodermund had quit her job
with Teleflora because she was “unable to provide the necessary equipment and had to end
the employment.” Rodermund appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Board, and the
Board affirmed. Rodermund appeals the Board’s final order, arguing that the Board
incorrectly characterized her termination as a voluntary resignation; that even if she did
voluntarily resign, she did so with good cause; and that the Board erred by not allowing her
to submit additional evidence prior to the Tribunal hearing.
On October 9, the Board affirmed the Tribunal’s decision disqualifying Rodermund
from receiving unemployment benefits, finding that in taking the Teleflora job, she accepted
2 the obligation to provide a computer suitable for work with certain specifications, that it
was unfortunate that her computer was out of warranty and crashed, and that work remained
available to her. The Board found that she effectively quit and did not quit to any condition
of work that would have impelled the average, able-bodied, qualified individual to give up
the job. The Board, therefore, held that she voluntarily left the job without good cause and
was thereby disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits until she has had at least
thirty days of employment. Rodermund appeals that determination.
II. Standard of Review
This court affirms the decision of the Board when it is supported by substantial
evidence. Allen v. Dir., 2014 Ark. App. 233, 434 S.W.3d 384. Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id.
We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Board’s
findings. Even if the evidence could support a different decision, our review asks whether
the Board could have reasonably reached its decision based on the evidence presented. Id.
III. Discussion
Rodermund argues that (1) ADWS improperly characterized her termination as a
voluntary resignation without good cause after Teleflora’s software rendered her personal
laptop inoperable; (2) even if Rodermund voluntarily quit, the Board lacked substantial
evidence to conclude that she lacked good cause to leave work; and (3) the Board lacked
substantial evidence to find that Rodermund had a reasonable opportunity to submit
additional evidence at her Tribunal hearing.
3 First, Rodermund argues that the Board erred in concluding that she quit her job
with Teleflora without good cause under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513(a)(1), which
provides that an individual shall be disqualified from receiving benefits if he or she
voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work left his or her last work.
Rodermund argues that she was discharged after she notified Teleflora that its computer
software system crashed her computer. We disagree.
Rodermund testified that she understood the company’s requirement to provide her
own equipment when she was hired. Rodermund admitted that she was told that if she
obtained a new computer, she could continue to train with Teleflora. She did not attempt
to take her computer to a repair shop and did not attempt to obtain a new computer; rather,
she simply stated that she could not afford one. In addition, Teleflora asked Rodermund to
fill out the remaining paperwork so she would be able to be paid for the training during the
brief time she worked; however, Rodermund refused to sign anything. While Teleflora’s
software may have damaged her computer, there is no evidence that she was terminated
because of this unfortunate event. Thus, the Board’s finding that Rodermund quit
voluntarily is supported by substantial evidence.
For her second point, Rodermund argues that, even if the Board was correct in
finding that she quit Teleflora, she acted with good cause that was associated with her work
and not misconduct. Again, she contends that the damage to her computer was not her
fault.
When a claimant has voluntarily quit work and is seeking unemployment-insurance
benefits, the burden is on the claimant to show that she had good cause connected to the
4 work for quitting. Keener v. Dir., 2021 Ark. App. 88, 618 S.W.3d 446. Furthermore,
“[g]ood cause has been defined as a cause that would reasonably impel the average able-
bodied, qualified worker to give up his or her employment.” Id. at 4, 618 S.W.3d at 449
(quoting Carpenter v. Dir., 55 Ark. App. 39, 41, 929 S.W.2d 177, 178 (1996)). Good cause
depends not only on the good faith of the employee involved, which includes the presence
of a genuine desire to work and be self-supporting, but also on the reaction of an average
employee. Fowlkes v. Dir., 2017 Ark. App. 56, 512 S.W.3d 667.
Rodermund cites Tyler v. Director, 2017 Ark. App.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 458 Elizabeth Perry I attest to the accuracy and ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS integrity of this document DIVISION I 2023.07.19 10:48:41 -05'00' No. E-20-312 2023.003.20244 AUDREY JO RODERMUND Opinion Delivered November 17, 2021 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF REVIEW V. [NO. 2020-BR-01258]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES AFFIRMED APPELLEE
STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge
Appellant Audrey Jo Rodermund appeals the Arkansas Board of Review’s (Board’s)
denial of unemployment benefits on a finding that she voluntarily left her job without good
cause. We affirm.
I. Background
Rodermund filed for unemployment benefits with the Arkansas Department of
Workforce Services (ADWS), and ADWS denied her claim. Rodermund appealed the
denial to the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal), and a Tribunal hearing officer held a
telephone hearing in August 2020. The employer did not participate in the hearing, leaving
Rodermund as the sole witness to provide testimony.
Rodermund testified that she worked for Teleflora for seven hours. She applied to
work for Teleflora after seeing an ad on Facebook. She had recently filed for unemployment
after being laid off due to COVID-19 from a sales job with MarketSource, Inc., whom she worked for from January 30 until April 18, 2020. She stated that she met the requirements
for the job—having a laptop that met certain specifications, a headset, and proper Wi-Fi
speed. Rodermund began training on April 27, 2020, on a web call with Teleflora. That
morning, she filled out and returned new-hire paperwork and in the afternoon downloaded
Citrix, a required program, to her computer. When she downloaded Citrix, her computer
stopped working. She called the IT department for assistance, and they had her delete the
Citrix program and reinstall it. It was at this point that the computer started crashing and
eventually “the computer just completely went black.” Rodermund was told that if she
could buy a new laptop that met the qualifications, she could still work. She never took
the laptop to a repair shop and did not purchase a laptop that would work with Teleflora’s
system. Rodermund testified that Teleflora sent her more information to electronically sign
so that she could get paid for the seven hours of training, but she refused to sign.
The Tribunal denied Rodermund’s request for benefits under Arkansas Code
Annotated § 11-10-513(a)(1) (Repl. 2013) after finding that Rodermund had quit her job
with Teleflora because she was “unable to provide the necessary equipment and had to end
the employment.” Rodermund appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Board, and the
Board affirmed. Rodermund appeals the Board’s final order, arguing that the Board
incorrectly characterized her termination as a voluntary resignation; that even if she did
voluntarily resign, she did so with good cause; and that the Board erred by not allowing her
to submit additional evidence prior to the Tribunal hearing.
On October 9, the Board affirmed the Tribunal’s decision disqualifying Rodermund
from receiving unemployment benefits, finding that in taking the Teleflora job, she accepted
2 the obligation to provide a computer suitable for work with certain specifications, that it
was unfortunate that her computer was out of warranty and crashed, and that work remained
available to her. The Board found that she effectively quit and did not quit to any condition
of work that would have impelled the average, able-bodied, qualified individual to give up
the job. The Board, therefore, held that she voluntarily left the job without good cause and
was thereby disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits until she has had at least
thirty days of employment. Rodermund appeals that determination.
II. Standard of Review
This court affirms the decision of the Board when it is supported by substantial
evidence. Allen v. Dir., 2014 Ark. App. 233, 434 S.W.3d 384. Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id.
We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Board’s
findings. Even if the evidence could support a different decision, our review asks whether
the Board could have reasonably reached its decision based on the evidence presented. Id.
III. Discussion
Rodermund argues that (1) ADWS improperly characterized her termination as a
voluntary resignation without good cause after Teleflora’s software rendered her personal
laptop inoperable; (2) even if Rodermund voluntarily quit, the Board lacked substantial
evidence to conclude that she lacked good cause to leave work; and (3) the Board lacked
substantial evidence to find that Rodermund had a reasonable opportunity to submit
additional evidence at her Tribunal hearing.
3 First, Rodermund argues that the Board erred in concluding that she quit her job
with Teleflora without good cause under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513(a)(1), which
provides that an individual shall be disqualified from receiving benefits if he or she
voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work left his or her last work.
Rodermund argues that she was discharged after she notified Teleflora that its computer
software system crashed her computer. We disagree.
Rodermund testified that she understood the company’s requirement to provide her
own equipment when she was hired. Rodermund admitted that she was told that if she
obtained a new computer, she could continue to train with Teleflora. She did not attempt
to take her computer to a repair shop and did not attempt to obtain a new computer; rather,
she simply stated that she could not afford one. In addition, Teleflora asked Rodermund to
fill out the remaining paperwork so she would be able to be paid for the training during the
brief time she worked; however, Rodermund refused to sign anything. While Teleflora’s
software may have damaged her computer, there is no evidence that she was terminated
because of this unfortunate event. Thus, the Board’s finding that Rodermund quit
voluntarily is supported by substantial evidence.
For her second point, Rodermund argues that, even if the Board was correct in
finding that she quit Teleflora, she acted with good cause that was associated with her work
and not misconduct. Again, she contends that the damage to her computer was not her
fault.
When a claimant has voluntarily quit work and is seeking unemployment-insurance
benefits, the burden is on the claimant to show that she had good cause connected to the
4 work for quitting. Keener v. Dir., 2021 Ark. App. 88, 618 S.W.3d 446. Furthermore,
“[g]ood cause has been defined as a cause that would reasonably impel the average able-
bodied, qualified worker to give up his or her employment.” Id. at 4, 618 S.W.3d at 449
(quoting Carpenter v. Dir., 55 Ark. App. 39, 41, 929 S.W.2d 177, 178 (1996)). Good cause
depends not only on the good faith of the employee involved, which includes the presence
of a genuine desire to work and be self-supporting, but also on the reaction of an average
employee. Fowlkes v. Dir., 2017 Ark. App. 56, 512 S.W.3d 667.
Rodermund cites Tyler v. Director, 2017 Ark. App. 545, 532 S.W.3d 618, as support
for her argument that good cause exists when an employer created the circumstances that
led to an employee’s departure. Ashley’s case is remarkably different from Tyler. Tyler
involved a claimant who complained to her company’s human-resources department about
a previous supervisor’s harassment and was informed she would not have to work near him
again. Id. However, the claimant was again placed within ten feet of this former supervisor
and unsuccessfully attempted to have him moved to prevent his continued mistreatment of
her. Id. The claimant quit and filed for unemployment benefits that were denied by the
Board. Id. Our court reversed and remanded, finding that the claimant attempted to
remedy a problem created by the employer. Id.
Here, Rodermund made no actual effort to repair her computer or purchase a new
one. Teleflora told her that if she could obtain a new computer, the job was available to
her. Upon taking this job, Rodermund knew that having a computer that could run certain
programs was a requirement. Moreover, Rodermund failed to complete the paperwork
that would have allowed her to be paid for her seven hours of employment. In sum,
5 substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Rodermund did not prove she had
good cause to end her employment with Teleflora.
For Rodermund’s final point, she argues that she had material evidence that would
prove she did not quit this job but was not given a reasonable opportunity to submit the
evidence for review. According to Rodermund, she was only given four business days to
obtain copies of this alleged material evidence. Therefore, she argues that the Board erred
by not allowing her additional time to submit this evidence. We disagree.
Rodermund was informed in the August 11 notice of hearing that documents not
received by the date of the appeal hearing may not be considered. Further, Rodermund
could have submitted these “material” documents with any of her prior filings—her initial
claim, her quit statement, or her notice of appeal of the tribunal’s decision—or she could
have advised the hearing officer that she had documents she wanted to place in the record
or asked to hold the record open. She did not. Rodermund was also informed that the
Board was without jurisdiction to consider or accept any submissions after the record is
closed by the Tribunal unless there was a subsequent hearing by the Board.
The Board’s finding that Rodermund had reasonable time to submit her evidence
before the telephone hearing is supported by the record. The decision to order a hearing
to allow additional evidence is within the Board’s discretion. Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v.
Dir., 36 Ark. App. 243, 821 S.W.2d 69 (1992). Rodermund’s claim that she had only four
business days to obtain copies of these May 2020 emails is not supported by the evidence.
Rodermund clearly made a bona fide attempt at employment that was unsuccessful.
We are not commenting on whether the seven-hour attempt would affect her
6 unemployment compensation from her previous employer, MarketSource, Inc., as that issue
is not before us; however, Teleflora is not liable for unemployment-compensation benefits
for this failed attempt.
Affirmed.
ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
Trevor Hawkins and Victoria Frazier, Legal Aid of Arkansas, for appellant.
Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, for appellee.