## Facts

- Esther Greenberg worked as a legal secretary for Checkbureau, Inc.
- The employer discharged her for poor job performance.
- The employer cited failures to mark the employer’s calendar with court or hearing dates on at least two occasions.
- The employer also cited Greenberg’s omission of certain documents from a letter sent to an insurance company.
- Greenberg applied for unemployment benefits after her discharge.
- The agency initially determined she was eligible for benefits because she was discharged for reasons other than misconduct; the Appeal Tribunal affirmed.
- The Board of Review reversed and denied benefits, finding misconduct connected with the work.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board of Review’s finding that Greenberg was discharged for “misconduct in connection with the work,” disqualifying her from unemployment benefits.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the Board of Review.
- The court held the Board’s misconduct finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
- The court reinstated Greenberg’s eligibility for unemployment benefits.

## Legal Principles

- For unemployment-disqualification purposes, “misconduct” requires more than poor performance and includes disregard of the employer’s interests, rules, expected standards of behavior, or the employee’s duties and obligations.
- Misconduct has an intent component; mere inefficiency, inadvertence, ordinary negligence, inability, or good-faith errors in judgment are not misconduct unless so recurrent or severe as to show culpability or an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or the employee’s duties.
- On judicial review, the Board’s findings are conclusive only if supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support the conclusion; an appellate court must reverse when that standard is not met.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Greenberg’s identified omissions—failing to calendar dates on at least two occasions and omitting documents from a letter—showed, at most, unsatisfactory performance or ordinary negligence and did not supply substantial evidence of willful or culpable misconduct that would disqualify her from unemployment benefits.


Greenberg v. Dir., Emp. Sec. Dep’t, 922 S.W.2d 5 (Ark. Ct. App. 1996) (en banc)