Court Opinion

ID: 9662276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:04:36.882945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:38.300571
License: Public Domain

Andree Layton Roaf, Judge, dissenting. I do not believe that the Board of Review’s decision to deny Gena C. Rossini’s claim for unemployment benefits based upon misconduct is supported by substantial evidence or by our case law. The sole basis for Rossini’s termination was that she called a male coworker a name during a heated argument over an account, in the presence of two other male employees, including her supervisor. Rossini testified that the coworker first called her a name but he denied this, and the others preáent testified that they did not hear it. There is extensive testimony in the record about the common use of profanity by employees in this department, including prior use by Rossini and the coworker involved in the dispute with her. Rossini had not been warned or reprimanded when she used the “F” word in anger in the presence of the supervisor two months before her termination. The policy Rossini was alleged to have violated prohibited “committing immoral acts, using abusive language or making racial slurs.” Although the Board of Review and the majority do not find Rollins v. Director, 58 Ark. App. 58, 945 S.W.2d 410 (1997), controlling , I disagree. Moreover, Reynolds v. Daniels, Director, 1 Ark. App. 262, 614 S.W.2d 525 (1981), is distinguishable, because it found unprovoked profanity directed at the employee’s immediate supervisor to be misconduct. In Rollins, this court found that harsh words spoken by an employee to a coworker immediately preceding a fight may have been spoken in poor judgment, but did not rise to the level of misconduct as defined by statute and the court. In this instance, Rossini’s actions in tossing off a parting comment at her coworker while retreating from the encounter certainly did not rise to the level of the provocative and confrontational encounter described in Rollins, and was not directed at her supervisor as was the profanity used in Reynolds. As in Rollins, Rossini’s words may have been spoken out of lack of judgment, but in the circumstances do not show malicious or willful intent or a recurrence of poor judgment so as to constitute misconduct. Hart, J., joins.