Case Name: Beverly J. TATE v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT of WORKFORCE SERVICES
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 2007-12-05
Citations: 100 Ark. App. 394
Docket Number: E 07-107
Parties: Beverly J. TATE v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT of WORKFORCE SERVICES
Judges: Pittman, C.J., Gladwin, Robbins, Glover and Vaught, JJ-, agree.
Reporter: Arkansas Appellate Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 394–400

Head Matter:
Beverly J. TATE v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT of WORKFORCE SERVICES
E 07-107
269 S.W.3d 402
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Opinion delivered December 5, 2007
Appellant, pro se.
Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.

Opinion:
D.P. Marshall Jr., Judge.
Beverly Tate challenges the Board of Review's decision that she was not entitled to unemployment benefits because the University of Arkansas fired her with cause for insubordination. Ark. Code Ann. § ll-10-514(a)(l) (Supp. 2007). Whether Tate's actions constituted misconduct in connection with her work was a fact question for the Board to answer. Terravista Landscape v. Williams, 88 Ark. App. 57, 64, 194 S.W.3d 800, 804 (2004). The question for this court is whether substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. Ibid. It does.
During the six months that Tate was in her last position at the University, she arrived late for work several times. At first, Tate wanted to make up for her tardiness, which was usually about fifteen minutes, by working during her break or her lunch time. Tate's supervisor instructed her that she could not do so, and instead must use some of her leave time to cover the tardiness. Tate questioned this interpretation of University policy. Tate and her supervisor consulted with the Associate Vice-Chancellor for Human Resources, who confirmed the supervisor's interpretation. When Tate was late again, her supervisor reminded her of the rules. Tate again sought to avoid using up her leave time and wanted to work during her breaks. Her supervisor refused, and suggested that Tate consult the supervisor's boss under the University's "open-door" policy. Tate did so. He declined to intervene, e-mailing Tate that she should sort the matter out with her supervisor.
A few weeks later, Tate was late two days in a row. When her supervisor told her to use leave time for this tardiness, Tate again said that she would just make up the time by working through her breaks. The supervisor refused, and told Tate that her attitude on this matter and others needed to improve. When Tate asked the supervisor to put that in writing, the supervisor discharged Tate.
This record contains substantial evidence that supports the Board's decision. Asking questions about an employer's policy is not insubordination. Asking the employer to change or interpret the policy is not insubordination. But after the questions are asked and the requested accommodation is rejected, then an employee who refuses to accept the employer's decision about the rules for the workplace is insubordinate. Tate would not take no for an answer. She never indicated to her supervisor that she would comply with her instructions. Substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that Tate's repeated attempt to disregard the University's time policies ripened into misconduct. Terravista Landscape, supra.
Affirmed.
Pittman, C.J., Gladwin, Robbins, Glover and Vaught, JJ-, agree.
Heffley, Baker and Miller, JJ., dissent.