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.
Williams v. Employment Security Division
Citations: 267 Ark. 1156; 594 S.W.2d 52; 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1183Docket: CA 79-24
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; January 30, 1980; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Marian F. Penix, Judge, reviewed an appeal regarding the denial of unemployment benefits to the claimant under Section 5(b)(2) of the Arkansas Employment Security Law. The Appeal Tribunal modified an initial Agency determination, affirming the disqualification but changing the basis from Section 5(b)(1) to 5(b)(2). The claimant was employed at General Telephone Company in Jacksonville, Arkansas, from June 1976 until her discharge in April 1979, with the employer citing her attempt to remove charges from her personal telephone bills as the reason for her discharge. The employer’s representative testified that the claimant had previously been warned about this conduct, asserting that her actions were an attempt to defraud the company. The claimant argued that the adjustment forms submitted were in good faith due to alleged equipment malfunctions. However, the employer's investigation suggested the claimant sought to evade legitimate charges. Under Section 5(b)(1), disqualification occurs for misconduct connected to work, while Section 5(b)(2) specifies disqualification for misconduct involving dishonesty. The claimant claimed she was denied due process due to insufficient notification of the charges against her, but the court found no procedural due process violation, noting that the claimant was aware of the misconduct allegations. Discrepancies existed between the claimant's and employer's testimony regarding her intent to defraud. However, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence indicated the claimant acted with the intent to defraud, supporting the decision with substantial evidence. The court upheld the Appeals Tribunal’s findings, affirming the disqualification of benefits. Judges Howard and Newbern dissented, while Judge Hays did not participate in the decision.