The opinion
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 601
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. E-25-99
SAMANTHA BOYCE Opinion Delivered December 10, 2025
APPELLANT
V. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
BOARD OF REVIEW
[NO. 2025-BR-00345]
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
WORKFORCE SERVICES
APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
The Division of Workforce Services denied Samantha Boyce unemployment benefits
because, according to the agency, Samantha “resigned.” Samantha was an employee with
a twenty-three-year history 1 (fifteen as manager) for LeAnn Steffey Ellison’s business called
Steffey’s Pizza, located on Main Street in Lavaca. Generally put, resignations foreclose
benefits, Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513 (Supp. 2025), because they are seen as voluntarily
leaving one’s employment without good cause connected with the work. The Board of
Review upheld the Appeal Tribunal’s decision to deny benefits, which mirrored the desk-
level denial. The Board of Review specifically held that Steffey “accelerated [Samantha’s]
resignation” because Samantha, while discussing work-related efficiencies and issues she was
experiencing with employees in her capacity as manager, mentioned that she might need to
1
The record shows an employment period at the pizza place from June 2002 to April
2025.
look for another job given the ongoing scene at the pizzeria. We reverse that decision and
remand for a proper award of benefits.
Below are some of the facts, as summarized by the Board of Review, that came out
during the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal. As so often happens, only Samantha (the
employee) attended; and nothing she stated under oath before the hearing officer was rebutted
by any witness. The following summary concerns a course of discussion that began, or was
perhaps exacerbated, in late February 2025:
[Samantha discussed with the owner] chronic tardiness of some employees,
staffing issues, and ways to improve efficiency. [Samantha] indicated that if
her suggestions had been followed, there would be greater efficiency, and her
workload would be reduced. [Samantha] explained that some employees
were constantly tardy. Sometimes, they operated with crew shortages.
Inexperienced crew members would be working where more experienced
individuals needed to be placed. [Samantha] explained that since she was there
more than the owner, she knew more about where and when certain
individuals needed to be assigned. According to [Samantha], the owner took
no action regarding her complaints. [Samantha] indicated that the owner’s
attitude was that since nobody else was complaining, things were acceptable.
[Samantha] testified that other workers were just afraid to complain because
they feared retaliation. [She] also testified that she requested extra paid time
off[, and she] testified that she had heard that another employee, who had
only been there for 10 years, and had quit and returned in the past, was getting
an extra week of paid vacation. This resulted in him getting the same amount
of paid time off as [Samantha]. The owner refused to give [her] any extra
paid time off and claimed that she could not afford it.
Nothing consequential seems to have happened until 2 April 2025. It was then that there
was more back and forth between Samantha and Steffey about Samantha’s sick child and
perhaps more. The “more” is unknown to the Board of Review and to us. The next day,
April 3, Samantha showed up at the pizzeria shortly before 8:00 am to open. She knew
something was up because no other employees were present. But Steffey, the owner, was.
2
That’s when she, in the Board of Review’s words, “accelerated [Samantha’s] resignation,”
which, in turn, fueled the completed denial of benefits.
For her part, Samantha steadfastly maintained from A to Z that she did not resign but
was fired. She did so when she made her initial claim, when she filled out her form to the
Appeal Tribunal, and during the related hearing. In the appeal form she wrote: “I did not
‘give intention to resign.’ I casually mentioned looking for another job as do many other
employees there. I did not ‘leave work voluntarily.’ She fired me. Specifically asked for
my key to the business and told me to leave. I have multiple texts to prove
[indecipherable].” Samantha did so again during the hearing itself. The Appeal Tribunal
record notes that Steffey neither appeared to testify under oath against the claim, nor did
she submit any exhibits to support the “accelerated resignation” conclusion. Samantha, to
the contrary, submitted statements and text messages from at least four people to support
her appeal. The hearing officer acknowledged documents that ran into dozens of pages as
he confirmed the Appeal Tribunal record before taking Samantha’s testimony. To say that
Samantha presented the hearing officer with all the information of record would be an
understatement. It wasn’t all about favorable text messages, written statements, and other
documents, of course.
When specifically questioned over the telephone by the hearing officer, Samantha
categorically denied resigning. Indeed, she was as certain about that as she was flabbergasted.
HEARING OFFICER: [D]id you quit the job?
SAMANTHA: I did not, and I’m honestly flabbergasted that that was
the decision. I definitely did not quit. I had casually
mentioned looking—needing to look for another job
because things there had gotten so bad. Her and I had
3
had multiple conversations since February about things
within the workplace that needed to be resolved that she
turned a blind eye to. So, no, I (INAUDIBLE). I’ve
never had to deal with unemployment before. I was at
that job for almost 23 years. So the fact that I was fired
in itself was shocking and overwhelming to me. Then
having to deal with all the unemployment, and then to
be denied and have to do this, is just—it’s
overwhelming.
HEARING OFFICER: Okay. Okay.
SAMANTHA: But no, sir, I did not. I showed up to work that day.
My shift was supposed to start at 8:00, and I’m usually at
least 10 minutes early because I drop my son off at 4:00,
and I go directly to work to get to work. I showed up ready,
willing, fully capable of working that day, had my purse, had
my lunchbox, and she was there waiting on me to fire me. And
that’s why on my cover letter with what I mailed, I
wanted her to have to supply a schedule because two
other employees were also supposed to be present at
work that day at 8:00, and they never showed up. I left
Steffeys that morning about—after her and I had our full
conversation about everything because I still kind of
backpedaled and was like, you know, I can’t believe like
this is happening just because, you know, you can’t
resolve workplace issues. And so we did have a
conversation. So I left there about 8:10, 8:15, and the
two other employees who were supposed to be present
at 8:00 still weren’t at work. And I was like, you know,
that’s weird. I don’t know how else to explain it other
than the fact that she called or texted them and told them
she was firing me and for them not to come to work
until I was dismissed and I left the premises. But no, I
showed up to work ready to work. Like had I decided
to quit, I would have given her a two-week notice. (Emphasis
added.)
There were more questions and answers to this general effect, including testimony
on issues that Samantha (as manager) brought to Steffey’s attention, etcetera. In the end, as
we have said, the hearing officer ruled that Samantha had resigned and therefore was denied
4
benefits. We, however, are not persuaded that substantial evidence supports the denial.
The record is as lopsided as the Tower of Pisa on the documents (in Samantha’s favor). The
testimony? Again, Steffey did not appear under oath to rebut one thing Samantha said under
oath. No-shows get no extra credit. 2 Samantha unequivocally stated that she did not resign.
And by all accounts she continued to stand her post and do her work—from February
through early April when Steffey told Samantha to give up the pizzeria keys. All things
considered, the Board of Review lacked a record on which it could reasonably conclude
that Steffey “accelerated [Samantha’s] resignation.” That curious (if not entirely self-
justifying) phrase cannot withstand scrutiny. See Blanton v. Dir., 2019 Ark. App. 205, at 2,
575 SW.3d 186, 188 (“[O]ur function on appeal is not merely to rubber stamp Board
decisions.”).
There is no written letter of resignation, as is customary. (Especially between an
employee/employer with a twenty-three-year relationship, one can reasonably conclude.)
There is no oral statement purporting to give a formal two weeks’ notice, either. While
not dispositive, the absence cuts against the employer. What we do have is a clear and
2
Hearing Officer: Okay. All right. Anything else before I close, ma’am? Samantha:
[I] provided that cover letter, which I know she didn’t participate in a conversation, and I
asked her to provide a copy of the schedule for the date that I was fired. And I know she
received this information, but since she didn’t participate, she just doesn’t have to provide
that schedule? [I] mean like that’s kind of what powerful evidence in my eyes that hey, I
was there at 8:00 and two other employees were supposed to be there, they could have
been potential witnesses but I think it’s pretty obvious that she alerted them and told them
not to show up to work that day. So I mean I feel like that’s a red flag on her part that . . .
her intention was to get rid of me. Hearing Officer: Well, your argument is part of the
record. She’s not here to argue otherwise. And so, you know, that helps your argument.
(Colloquy cleaned up slightly for readability.)
5
unrebutted sworn statement by Samantha that she would have provided two weeks’ notice
had she intended to resign.
The timing issue also received short shrift; but it too supports Samantha. Though
not crystal clear, it appears the troublesome phrase to the Board of Review was uttered in
February 2025. Setting aside that a manager-level employee ought to be able to discuss her
experience in an appropriate way and degree to a superior who has given that person high
responsibility, what’s clear is Owner Steffey was fine to permit Manager Samantha to
continue running the pizza place for another month or more until April 3. (In the
documentary part of the record there is mention of ongoing discussions for ten weeks.) The
Board of Review reasoned there was some long, slow-burning resignation fuse that was
conveniently “accelerated” by an April 2 discussion. That position fizzles out under a close
reading of the record.
* * *
Dissatisfaction and disillusionment developed between employee and employer, and
vice versa. At some point, Steffey had enough and fired Samantha. The propriety of that
termination is not at issue. This case is about whether Samantha voluntarily left her work
without good cause instead of being fired. Given this record, the Board of Review’s
decision that Samantha resigned instead of being fired is unreasonable and therefore
mistaken. We reverse the denial and remand for an award of benefits.
Reversed and remanded.
VIRDEN, J., agrees.
GLADWIN, J., concurs.
6
Samantha Boyce, pro se appellant.
Cynthia L. Uhrynowycz, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
7