# Coker v. Director, Department of Workforce Services

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · September 12, 2007 · 99 Ark. App. 455

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757158

## Case

- **Full name:** Stephanie COKER v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT of WORKFORCE SERVICES, and James Law Firm
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 12, 2007
- **Citations:** 99 Ark. App. 455; 262 S.W.3d 175; 2007 Ark. App. LEXIS 608
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Griffen
- **Judges:** David M. Glover
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757158

## Opinion text

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge, dissenting. I would reverse and hold that the Board’s decision on misconduct is not supported by substantial evidence. The claimant failed to get clarification concerning the conflicting instructions she was given. However, her actions were in no way detrimental to the employer’s interest. Although Coleman and Barraza gave the claimant conflicting instmctions, the claimant’s purchases with the firm credit card were authorized by Barraza, and the claimant filed the pleadings that Coleman directed her to file.
I do not see how the claimant’s conduct involved disregard of her employment duties and obligations, disregard of the standards of behavior for her workplace, violation of the employer’s rules, or disregard for the employer’s interest so as to constitute misconduct as that term is defined by Grigsby v. Everett, 8 Ark. App. 188 , 649 S.W.2d 404 (1983). Instead, the evidence in this case does not demonstrate the intent required for misconduct. In that sense, this case warrants reversal even more than was true in Greenberg v. Director, 53 Ark. App. 295 , 922 S.W.2d 5 (1996), where we reversed the Board of Review for denying benefits to a legal secretary who was rather inept.
Here, the claimant received conflicting instructions, and appears to have been fired for trying to accomplish the tasks she was assigned by Coleman and Barraza. She might have exercised better judgment, but I do not see how she intentionally acted contrary to the law firm’s interests. Consequently, I vote to reverse and remand for benefits.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757158. Public record. Not legal advice.