Sims v. Director, Department of Workforce Services , 2014 Ark. App. LEXIS 717 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 512
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. E-13-820
PAUL SIMS Opinion Delivered OCTOBER 1, 2014
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
V. BOARD OF REVIEW
[NO. 2013-BR-01943]
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES, and
BISMARCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS
APPELLEES REVERSED AND REMANDED
BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge
Appellant Paul Sims appeals from the Board of Review’s decision on July 26, 2013,
affirming and adopting the Appeal Tribunal’s determination that Sims was discharged from
his job at Bismarck Public Schools for misconduct connected with the work.1 Sims argues that
the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We reverse and remand for an
award of benefits.
Sims was hired as the high school counselor in August 1995 and discharged on June
30, 2009. Sims had only one evaluation in his fourteen years with Bismarck Public Schools.
The evaluation dated February 27, 2009, shortly before his termination, indicates that Sims
was “proficient,” and even “distinguished,” in all areas of his job with the exception that he
had received a score of “basic” with respect to the accuracy of his records.
In February 2008, the Department of Education conducted a standards review at
1
This case has an extensive procedural history; however, it is not relevant to this appeal.
Sims v. Dir., Dep’t of Workforce Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 241.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 512
Bismarck Public Schools, and the review revealed that one student was permitted to graduate
in 2007 without the proper credits. Specifically, the student had 2.5 math credits when the
State required three. Sims was advised in a letter from the principal, Jarrod Bray, dated May
27, 2008, of “a transcript issue.” Bray informed Sims that, as the high school counselor, it was
his job to ensure that all students had the appropriate number and type of credits required by
the district and the State. Bray directed Sims to develop “a check system” and to review and
update the students’ transcripts before the start of school in August to avoid “further issues of
this nature.”
At the school district’s request, there was an audit of the students’ transcripts in
December 2008. The audit indicated that twenty-one out of fifty-six seniors were not
scheduled to take a fourth math credit, which was a new requirement by the State for seniors
graduating in 2009.
On April 15, 2009, Superintendent David Hopkins informed Sims that he would
recommend that his contract not be renewed, citing the standards review in February 2008
and the audit in December 2008. Hopkins made his recommendation to the school board,
which voted unanimously to terminate Sims’s contract.
In the employer’s statement with the Department of Workforce Services, Sims’s duties
are described as “duties assigned to a high school counselor.” The form indicates that Sims
violated “company & State” policy in that, “Seniors must have by State standards a certain
number of [credits] in math to be able to graduate. A large number of our Seniors did not
have them.” The form also states that Sims was made aware of the policy through the
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 512
“employer’s handbook” and “verbally” and that he was advised of the policy in that he “was
notified of these requirements a year prior to this incident.”
In a hearing before the Appeal Tribunal, Hopkins testified that it was the counselor’s
responsibility to ensure that students had the proper number of credits to graduate. Hopkins
testified that he expected the counselor to look for changes in the standards but that he looked
for such changes as well. He stated that they were supposed to work together as a team but
that Sims was not a team player. When asked whether Sims had received notice of the change
in requirements, Hopkins stated that Sims had “every opportunity” to get that information.
Hopkins also stated that, had Sims attended the in-service workshops for counselors, he would
have stayed up-to-date on the State’s standards. Hopkins further testified that the change from
requiring three math credits to four was “broadcast across the state” and that “[e]verybody
knew about it but Mr. Sims, for whatever reason.”
Hopkins admitted, however, that the school’s 2008–2009 student handbook was
incorrect in requiring students to have only three math credits. According to Hopkins, a
committee created and reviewed the school’s handbook every year and he himself had
reviewed it but did not catch the error. Hopkins stated that he did not know whether Sims
was on the committee but that, nevertheless, it was Sims’s job to make sure the handbook was
correct. Hopkins described the student handbook as the final authority on the number of
credits required to graduate.
Regarding Sims’s failure to ensure that students had the proper credits, Hopkins
testified, “And that situation arose not only once, but twice. There was an opportunity given
3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 512
to make a correction; that correction was not made.” Hopkins conceded that, while Sims was
negligent, he did not think that Sims’s failure to perform his job duties was intentional or
deliberate.
Sims testified that since he was hired at Bismarck Public Schools in 1995, students were
required to have three math credits. Sims complained about the school’s outdated computers
and stated that, according to his own records on which he relied, the one student referred to
in the standards review in early 2008 had the required three math credits to graduate. Sims
testified that before he was discharged, he did not receive notice that the number of math
credits required by the State had increased to four. Rather, he consulted the school’s
2008–2009 handbook in determining the number of required credits. Sims testified that the
year he was discharged, as well as the previous year, he was told that he did not need to go
to the in-service workshops.
The Appeal Tribunal found that Hopkins credibly testified that the guidance counselor
was responsible for ensuring compliance with the State’s graduation requirements. The
Tribunal found that Sims failed to adequately perform at least a portion of his job duties and
concluded that Sims’s negligence was of such degree to constitute misconduct.
The Board adopted the Tribunal’s decision and made additional findings in affirming
the denial of benefits. The Board pointed out that Sims offered no information to show that
he attempted “to check the state standards as he had been directed to do” by Bray in the letter
dated May 27, 2008. The Board concluded that Sims offered “no credible explanation” as to
why he failed to perform his job duties and that such failure was negligence of such degree
4
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 512
or recurrence as to manifest wrongful intent or evil design.
We review the Board’s findings in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and
affirm the Board’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. Price v. Dir., Dep’t of
Workforce Servs., 2013 Ark. App. 205. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as
reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. Even when there is
evidence on which the Board might have reached a different decision, the scope of our review
is limited to a determination of whether the Board reasonably could have reached the decision
it did based on the evidence presented. Id.
If so found by the Director of Workforce Services, an individual shall be disqualified
for benefits if he is discharged from his last work for misconduct in connection with the work.
Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(1) (Supp. 2009). The employer has the burden of proving
by a preponderance of the evidence that an employee engaged in misconduct. Price, supra.
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). Misconduct in connection
with the work shall not be found for instances of poor performance unless the employer can
prove that the poor performance was intentional. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514(a)(4)(A). An
individual’s repeated act of commission, omission, or negligence despite progressive discipline
constitutes sufficient proof of intentional poor performance. Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-
514(a)(4)(B).
This court has held that misconduct includes (1) disregard of the employer’s interest,
5
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 512
(2) violation of the employer’s rules, (3) disregard of the standards of behavior which the
employer has a right to expect of his employees, and (4) disregard of the employee’s duties
and obligations to his employer. Nibco, Inc. v. Metcalf, 1 Ark. App. 114, 613 S.W.2d 612
(1981). The act of misconduct requires “more 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.” Id. at 118, 613
S.W.2d at 614. 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. Id.
Sims argues that neither he, nor the principal, nor the superintendent, nor the
handbook committee was aware that the State had changed its standards to require four math
credits. Sims further argues that the two mistakes he made were entirely different. He
contends that, at most, his failure to learn of the new requirements was negligence but not
misconduct.
We agree. The situation in early 2008 involved a mistake with respect to one student’s
transcript, while the audit in late 2008 revealed that many students did not have the required
credits to graduate—not due to errors in the transcripts—but because the State’s standards had
changed. It was undisputed that Sims was unaware that the State had changed the graduation
requirements and that the school’s 2008–2009 student handbook did not reflect that change.
While the letter from the principal broadly advised Sims to ensure that students had the
proper credits to graduate, Sims was not directed to check the State’s standards, as found by
6
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 512
the Board. It was the employer’s burden to show that Sims’s negligence constituted
misconduct. We cannot say that reasonable minds could conclude that Sims’s apparent error
in his records and his failure to stay current on graduation requirements amount to
misconduct sufficient to deny him unemployment benefits. We hold that there was no
substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that Sims’s negligence was of such
degree or recurrence as to manifest wrongful intent or evil design.
Reversed and remanded.
PITTMAN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Baker, Schulze & Murphy, by: J.G. “Gerry” Schulze, for appellant.
Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.
7