Superior Senior Care, Inc. v. Director, Division of Workforce Services; And Topeka Strickland

── Superior Senior Care, Inc. v. Director, Division of Workforce Services; And Topeka Strickland ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 279 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. E-25-154 Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026 SUPERIOR SENIOR CARE, INC. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANT BOARD OF REVIEW [NO. 2025-BR-00606] V. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE SERVICES; AND TOPEKA STRICKLAND APPELLEES AFFIRMED BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge The Arkansas Board of Review (the Board) found that Topeka Strickland had been discharged from last work for reasons other than misconduct in connection with the work and that she should receive unemployment benefits. Her employer, Superior Senior Care, Inc. (Superior), appeals that decision and argues that it is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. Strickland worked for Superior as a front office coordinator for three days. On the third day of her employment, Strickland’s supervisor, Christina Dunn, sat down with Strickland at her workstation at the front desk. Dunn assigned Strickland the task of typing some text into a Word document, but Strickland became nervous and could not perform the assigned task. After several minutes, Dunn asked, “So, you’re telling me you can’t do this job?” Strickland responded in the affirmative and later gathered her things, left the 1 office, and did not return. Strickland applied for unemployment benefits, and the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services (DWS) determined that she had been discharged for failing to meet her employer’s work standards. DWS also found that her employer had not provided sufficient evidence to support a finding that Strickland willfully disregarded her duties and obligations to her employer. Superior appealed this finding, and at a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), Dunn testified that Strickland had quit after she could not perform the task that was asked of her. Dunn denied telling Strickland that she was terminated or that she “wasn’t a good fit for the position.” Strickland testified that on the morning in question, Dunn asked her to type some text into a Word document. Strickland acknowledged that she was very nervous, and after several minutes, Dunn told her that “this is not going to be a good fit” and that she needed “to clock out.” Strickland’s understanding was that she was discharged, and she denied ever telling Dunn that she quit. The ALJ found that the employer has the burden of proving misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence and that here, Superior had not shown that Strickland quit or that she was discharged for misconduct. The ALJ noted that misconduct requires more than mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity; there must be a willful or wanton disregard or carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest wrongful intent or evil design. The ALJ found that Strickland had displayed a failure in good performance as the result of 2 inability or incapacity and not a willful disregard of the employer’s interest. Thus, the ALJ concluded that Strickland had been discharged from last work for reasons other than misconduct in connection with the work. Superior appealed to the Board, which issued its own decision affirming the ALJ’s decision. The Board’s opinion stated, The Board finds that the claimant was discharged from her last work for two reasons. First, the claimant’s unrefuted testimony was that she felt she was being terminated when she was told to gather her things and clock out. Second, the employer testified that b