Alex Sylvester v. Director, Arkansas Employment Security Department and Arkansas State Police

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  DIVISION IV  E05­46  March 15, 2006  AN APPEAL FROM ARKANSAS  STATE BOARD OF REVIEW  [NO. 2004­BR­2263]  ALEX SYLVESTER  APPELLANT  V. DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS  EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT. and  ARKANSAS STATE POLICE  APPELLEES  AFFIRMED WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, Judge  Alex  Sylvester  appeals  from  a  decision  from  the  Board  of  Review  denying  him  unemployment  benefits  based  on  misconduct  connected  with  the  work  on  account  of  dishonesty.  He argues that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.  We hold that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and affirm.  Appellant  was  terminated  by  the  Arkansas  State  Police  on  April  7,  2004,  and  reinstated by the Arkansas State Police Commission on July 20, 2004.  At the hearing on  appellant’s  claim  for  unemployment  benefits,  Steve  Clemons  testified  on  behalf  of  the  Arkansas State Police that appellant’s discharge was associated with a sexual affair appellant  1  had with the victim in one of his cases.  Clemons learned of the affair when the victim’s  husband complained that appellant caused him and his wife to divorce.  When asked about  the affair, appellant initially denied the relationship; however, he later admitted to having the 1  Clemons also testified that appellant was terminated for incompetence because he  interviewed two suspects at the same time in a restaurant and allowed the suspects to  enter his residence.  These facts appear to be irrelevant for the purposes of this appeal. affair.  Clemons stated that an employee who does not give a truthful statement is in violation  of Arkansas State Police policy, and the fact that the employee recants the false statement  does not make the error any less of a violation.  On cross­examination, Clemons stated that  the prosecutor had no issues with appellant’s credibility; however, the deputy prosecutor did  have  an  issue  with  appellant’s  veracity.  Clemons  also  testified  that  the  sexual  contact  between appellant and the victim was consensual.  The employment security department denied appellant benefits pursuant to Ark. Code  Ann. § 11­10­514(a) (Repl. 2002), which disqualifies an individual from receiving benefits  if  he  is  discharged for misconduct in connection with the work.  The Arkansas Appeals  Tribunal modified the decision to deny benefits pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11­10­514(b),  which disqualifies an individual from receiving benefits if he is discharged for misconduct  2  specifically on the account of dishonesty.  It concluded that appellant’s violation of the  truthfulness policy “was willful and below the standard of behavior the employer had a right  to expect.”  The Board of Review affirmed and adopted the Tribunal’s decision.  We affirm the findings of the Board of Review if they are supported by substantial  evidence.  Billings  v.  Director,  84  Ark.  App.  79,  133  S.W.3d  399  (2003).  Substantial  evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support 2  Arkansas Code Annotated section 11­10­514 reads in pertinent part:  (a)(1) If so found by the Director of the Arkansas Employment Security Department,  an individual shall be disqualified for benefits if he or she is discharged from his or  her last work for misconduct in connection with the work.  * * *  (b) If he or she is discharged from his or her last work for misconduct in connection  with the work on account of dishonesty, . . . he or she shall be disqualified from the  date of filing the claim until he or she shall have ten (10) weeks of employment in  each of which he or she shall have earned wages equal to at least his or her weekly  benefit amount.  2  a conclusion.  Id.  We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light  of the Board’s findings.  Id.  Like a jury, an administrative body is free to accept or reject the  testimony of witnesses.  Gunter v. Director, 82 Ark. App. 346, 107 S.W.3d 902 (2003).  Even if there is evidence that could lead the Board to reach a different decision, our review  is limited to whether the Board could have reasonably reached its decision based upon the  evidence presented.  Billings v. Director, supra.  Appellant argues that the Board’s decision that he was discharged from the Arkansas  State  Police  for  misconduct  on  account  of  dishonesty  is  not  supported  by  substantial  evidence.  The employer has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that  it discharged the employee for misconduct.  Maxfield v. Director, 84 Ark. App. 48, 129  S.W.3d 298 (2003).  Misconduct is defined as: (1) disregard of the employer’s interests; (2)  violation  of  the  employer’s  rules;  (3)  disregard  of  the  standards  of  behavior  which  the  employer has a right to expect of his employees; (4) disregard of the employee’s duties and  obligations to the employer.  Id.  Mere unsatisfactory conduct, ordinary negligence, or good­  faith errors in judgment or discretion are not considered misconduct unless they are of such  a degree or recurrence as to manifest wrongful intent, evil design, or an intentional disregard  of the employer’s interests.  Id.  In addition, dishonesty is defined as “a disposition to lie,  cheat or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity.”  King v. Director, 80 Ark. App. 57,  60, 92 S.W.3d 685, 686­87 (2002) (quoting Olson v. Everett, Director, 8 Ark. App. 230, 231,  650 S.W.2d 247, 248 (1983)).  A good­faith belief that an assertion is true and with no intent  to deceive is not adequate grounds for disqualification of benefits under Ark. Code Ann. §  11­10­514(b).  Id.  Appellant argues that his relationship with the victim was consensual and, therefore,  protected under both the federal and Arkansas Constitutions (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 539  U.S. 558 (2003); Swope v. Bratton, 541 F. Supp. 99 (W.D. Ark. 1982); Jegley v. Picado, 349 3  Ark. 600, 80 S.W.3d 332 (2002)).  However, his argument misses the point.  Appellant was  not terminated for having a sexual relationship with the victim on one of his cases; rather,  he was terminated for lying to his employer about the relationship when directly asked about  it.  As noted by the Appeals Tribunal, appellant’s denial of the affair could be detrimental  to the prosecution’s case, as his denial of the relationship affects his veracity on the witness  stand.  The  fact  that  appellant  eventually  admitted  the  relationship  does  not  repair  the  damage to his credibility, nor does it make his misstatement less serious.  Appellant’s job  required him to be an honest person, and his actions showed an intentional disregard for his  employer’s interests.  The  Board’s  decision  to  deny  appellant  unemployment  benefits  for  misconduct  connected with his work on  account of dishonesty is supported by substantial evidence.  Accordingly, we affirm.  Affirmed.  GLADWIN and NEAL, JJ., agree. 4 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.