Susan Williams ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
2019.01.03 DIVISION IV
14:02:04 -06'00' No. E-13-217
JAMESIA STEPHNEY Opinion Delivered October 2, 2013
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
V. BOARD OF REVIEW
[NO. 2013-BR-00072]
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES, and
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION
APPELLEES REVERSED AND REMANDED
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
Appellant Jamesia Stephney worked as a correctional officer for appellee Arkansas
Department of Correction from April 25, 2011, until her discharge on August 28, 2012.
Jamesia was awarded unemployment benefits by the Appeal Tribunal. However, the Board
of Review reversed the Appeal Tribunal’s decision, finding that Jamesia was disqualified for
benefits because she was discharged for misconduct connected with the work. Jamesia now
appeals, and we reverse the Board’s decision and remand for an award of benefits.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-514(a) (Repl. 2012) provides that an
individual shall be disqualified for benefits if she is discharged from her last work for
misconduct in connection with the work. The employer has the burden of proving
misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence. Maxfield v. Dir., Ark. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t,
it is supported by substantial evidence, and our review is limited to whether the Board could
reasonably reach its decision based on the evidence before it. Peterson v. Dir., Ark. Emp’t Sec.
Dep’t,
(2005).
Jamesia’s employer has a policy prohibiting trafficking and trading with inmates. The
employer’s warden had heard that Jemesia was involved in acts of accepting money from
inmates. Based on this information, a deputy warden arranged for an inmate to give Jamesia
$150 in cash that was marked with invisible florescent detection powder. The inmate
reported that he went into Jamesia’s workstation and put the $150 in her back pocket.
Jamesia was removed from her post and asked whether she had accepted money
from an inmate, and she replied that she had not. Then Jamesia was directed to place her
hands in a black-light box, and the human-resources manager stated that some florescent
residue was detected on Jamesia’s hands. Jamesia requested to see the black-light findings, but
her employer refused. Jamesia was then strip-searched, but no money was found. A search
of Jamesia’s workstation was conducted, but no money was recovered there either. After that,
a voice-stress exam was administered, and Jamesia was reportedly deceptive when she denied
taking money from an inmate. However, Jamesia requested and was denied a copy of the
exam’s findings. Jamesia was subjected to a second strip search, but again no money was
found.
Jamesia was fired based on her employer’s allegation that she had accepted money. At
the hearing, Jamesia testified that she had never taken money from an inmate.
2
Cite as
In this case the Board found that Jamesia was discharged for misconduct because she
took money from an inmate, thereby intentionally violating a policy of her employer.
However, we conclude that this finding was not supported by substantial evidence. Although
the employer arranged for an informant to give Jamesia premarked money, that money
was never found despite two strip searches and a search of Jamesia’s workstation. When
confronted with the accusation that florescent residue was seen on her hands, Jamesia
continued to deny taking any money, and her employer refused to show her the black-light
test results. And while Jamesia allegedly failed a voice-stress test, her employer also withheld
those test results from her.
Based on the evidence presented, we hold that the Board could not reasonably
conclude that Jamesia accepted money from the inmate. Therefore, we reverse the Board’s
finding that Jamesia was discharged for misconduct in connection with the work, and we
remand for an award of benefits.
Reversed and remanded.
GRUBER and WOOD, JJ., agree.
3
