Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Proctor v. Dir.
Citation: 2013 Ark. App. 478Docket: E-12-1003
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; September 11, 2013; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Suzanne Proctor appealed the Arkansas Board of Review's decision denying her unemployment benefits following her termination from the Cabot School District as principal of Northside Elementary School. Proctor was absent from work without prior approval on September 1, 2, and 6, 2011, leading to a suspension without pay by Superintendent Tony Thurman and subsequent termination by the Cabot School Board. Proctor's appeal to the Lonoke County Circuit Court upheld the school board’s decision, which this court also affirmed. In November 2011, the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services notified Proctor that she was disqualified from unemployment benefits due to being discharged for misconduct. Proctor appealed this decision, and a hearing was held in January 2012, where Assistant Superintendent Jim Dalton testified that her unapproved absences left the school without adequate supervision. Dalton noted that Proctor was aware of the policy requiring notification for absences, as she had followed it previously and had received reminders about its importance. Although it was acknowledged that written personnel policies were required, the specific requirement for principals to notify administration about absences was not documented in writing. Dalton clarified that the district employed a non-progressive disciplinary approach, assessing each incident individually. Proctor only submitted a personal-leave request after being informed of her inappropriate actions on September 7, 2011. The Board's decision to deny her unemployment benefits was ultimately affirmed. Proctor admitted to making a mistake by not seeking preapproval for her leave, believing that submitting a leave slip after her absence sufficed. She had accumulated five personal days and claimed no written policy mandated prior notification. Despite having never faced discipline in her nine years of employment, she failed to inform her supervisors about her absence, citing it was for personal reasons and she was unfamiliar with the notification requirements. Proctor maintained communication with other staff during her absence but acknowledged her failure to contact her direct supervisors. The Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial of her unemployment benefits, concluding Proctor acted with deliberate disregard for the employer's expectations and policies by not securing approval and leaving the school inadequately staffed. The Board of Review affirmed this decision, stating that misconduct requires intentional disregard of employer interests, which was evident in Proctor's actions. Proctor's appeal was based on the absence of a clear attendance policy, but the Board found substantial evidence of misconduct. Ultimately, the denial of benefits was affirmed, highlighting Proctor's unapproved absence and the violation of expected standards for her role.