The opinion
Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 201
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Elizabeth Perry
I attest to the accuracy and
DIVISION II
integrity of this document
No. E-20-319
2023.06.26 15:46:04 -05'00'
2023.001.20174
Opinion Delivered: April 28, 2021
ROBERT BALLARD
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
BOARD OF REVIEW
V.
[NO. 2020-BR-01363]
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES
APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR
AN AWARD OF BENEFITS
MIKE MURPHY, Judge
In this unbriefed employment-security case, Robert Ballard appeals the Arkansas
Board of Review’s (Board’s) decision denying his claim for unemployment benefits on a
finding that he performed services for an educational institution, and the circumstances of
the interruption did not allow him benefits on the basis of those services. We reverse and
remand for an award of benefits.
Our standard of review in unemployment-insurance cases is well settled. We do not
conduct de novo reviews in appeals from the Board. Keener v. Dir., 2021 Ark. App. 88, at
1–2. Instead, we review the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in
the light most favorable to the Board’s findings of fact. Id. We accept the Board’s findings
of fact as conclusive if supported by substantial evidence, which is such relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Id. Even when
there is evidence upon which the Board might have reached a different decision, our scope
of judicial review is limited to a determination of whether the Board could have reasonably
reached the decision rendered on the basis of the evidence presented. Id. We defer
credibility calls to the Board as the finder of fact as well as the weight to be accorded to
testimony presented to the Board. Id. While our role in these cases is limited, we are not
here to merely ratify the decision of the Board. Id. Instead, our role is to ensure that the
standard of review has been met. See id.
Robert Ballard worked as the director of the fitness center for the Phillips
Community College at the University of Arkansas. He was hired on August 21, 2017, for a
year-round position in an educational institution. He was furloughed from May 4, 2020,
through July 6, 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He testified that he is not
normally off during the summer, and the vice chancellor for the school testified that she did
not understand why Ballard was being denied benefits “because he is a 12-month
employee.” Nevertheless, the hearing officer found that because (1) Ballard worked for an
educational institution, (2) there was an interruption of work, and (3) he had reasonable
assurance he would continue to perform the same services after the interruption, he was not
entitled to benefits. Without rendering additional opinion, the Board summarily adopted
and affirmed the decision of the hearing officer. Ballard now appeals.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-10-509 (Repl. 2012) provides that
(a) With respect to service performed in an instructional, research, or principal
administrative capacity as an employee of an educational institution, benefits shall not
be paid based on services for any week of unemployment commencing during the
period between two (2) successive academic years or terms, during a similar period
between two (2) regular but not successive terms, or during a period of paid sabbatical
leave provided for in the individual’s contract to any individual if:
2
(1) The individual performs the services in the first of the academic years
or terms; and
(2) There is a contract or a reasonable assurance that the individual will
perform services in any such capacity as an employee of any educational
institution in the second of the academic years or terms.
Here, Ballard was not hired as a teacher or other administrator who might, for
example, regularly be on leave from the beginning of summer and rehired by that school or
another school in the fall, as contemplated in the statute. Instead, the record indicates that
his position was that of a year-round employee. The interruption of his regular, year-round
employment was not due to some natural break in the academic cycle but because of
circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. Substantial evidence does not support the
Board’s conclusion. We reverse and remand for an award of benefits.
Reversed and remanded for an award of benefits.
VIRDEN and BROWN, JJ., agree.
Robert E. Ballard, pro se appellant.
Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
3