Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

In 2012, Appellant, clerk for the City of Harrisburg, filed a complaint and petition for writ of quo warranto seeking to compel the City to pay her wages due for the joint position of city clerk/treasurer and alleging that the present treasurer of the City was occupying the office without legal authority. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Appellant, as city clerk, was not the successor to the former office of city clerk/treasurer and was therefore not entitled to any additional wages. The circuit court denied the City’s summary judgment motion and then dismissed Appellant’s complaint with prejudice, concluding that the ordinance relied upon by Appellant did not recognize and fund the combined office of city clerk/treasurer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the ordinance did not join the offices of city clerk and treasurer so as to establish a combined office of city clerk/treasurer. View "King v. City of Harrisburg" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured while working for Employer. Following the accident, a drug test on Appellant came back positive. Appellant sought workers’ compensation benefits. An administrative law judge found that Appellant was entitled to benefits, concluding that he met his burden of proving that his accidental work incident was not substantially occasioned by the use of drugs. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, determining that Appellant did not rebut the presumption that his accident was substantially occasioned by his use of illegal drugs. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the Commission for a determination of benefits, holding that substantial evidence did not support the Commission’s finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured at work and taken to the hospital, where he tested positive for marijuana. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denied Appellant’s claim for benefits based on its finding that, after the accident, Appellant tested positive for illegal drugs and thatAppellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the accident was substantially occasioned by his drug use. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Commission’s decision, holding that substantial evidence did not support the finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption that his accident was not substantially occasioned by his use of illegal drugs. View "Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing" on Justia Law

Mike Burcham filed an amended complaint against the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas for wrongful discharge. After the circuit court denied the Board’s motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, the Board sought extraordinary writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari directed to the Circuit Court of Crawford County to stop the court from proceeding further on the complaint based on lack of venue. The Supreme Court also decided on the day of this opinion, in a separate interlocutory appeal, that the Board was entitled to sovereign immunity. Because of the Court’s conclusion that the Board was indeed entitled to sovereign immunity, the case against the Board was dismissed and the instant petition for extraordinary writs was therefore moot. View "Bd. of Trs. v. Crawford County Cir. Court" on Justia Law

Mike Burcham filed an action against the University of Arkansas and others, claiming that he was wrongfully terminated. The University filed an amended motion to dismiss, arguing that Burcham’s complaint was barred by sovereign immunity. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that an allegation in Burcham’s complaint that the University failed to follow a grievance procedure outlined in the employee handbook was sufficient to waive the University’s sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that none of the exceptions to sovereign immunity were applicable to the instant case, and therefore, the circuit court erred in denying the University’s amended motion to dismiss. View "Bd. of Trs. v. Burcham" on Justia Law

On July 12, 2010, Appellant was hired as a patient-care tech by Employer. On January 11, 2012, Employer terminated Appellant’s employment for Appellant's failure to become certified within eighteen months of being hired. The Department of Workforce Services denied Appellant’s subsequent application for unemployment benefits, finding that Appellant was discharged for failure to become certified. The Board of Review upheld the Department’s denial of benefits, concluding that Appellant’s actions were a willful disregard of her employer’s interests, and therefore, Appellant was discharged for misconduct in connection with her work. After noting that Appellant was on track to receive her testing date in advance of the eighteen-month deadline but for Employer’s failure properly to complete her application for testing, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board could not have reasonably reached its conclusion that Appellant’s actions were misconduct where the required element of intent was so lacking. Remanded. View "Garrett v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed this action against Respondents, her former employer and former supervisor, asserting retaliation claims pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-108. After the case was removed to federal court, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred, arguing that the one-year statute of limitations period pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-107(c)(3) of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act should apply. The federal district court asked the Arkansas Supreme Court to accept a certified question to decide the appropriate statute-of-limitations period applicable to section 16-123-108 claims. The Supreme Court answered by holding that the three-year statute-of limitations period provided in Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-105 applies to retaliation claims filed pursuant to section 16-123-108. View "Smith v. ConAgra Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Employee was employer at Employer's aluminum-processing plant from 1957 to 1989. In 2009, Employee filed an occupational-disease claim for benefits with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission, alleging that he suffered from cancer caused by his exposure to asbestos while working for Employer. A law judge found Employee's complaint was time barred. Rather than appeal the decision to the full Commission, Employee filed suit against Employer in circuit court. Employer filed a motion to dismiss based on the exclusive remedy afforded by the Workers' Compensation Act. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that, where a plaintiff's disease manifests after the statute of limitations has expired, a circuit court has authority to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims. The Supreme Court granted Employer's requested writ of prohibition, holding that the Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue in the first instance, and because Employee's claim was not submitted to the Commission, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to decide the case. View "Reynolds Metal Co. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a claim for benefits associated with an injury he received during his employment. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commissioned denied the claim based on a finding that Appellant tested positive for controlled substances after the injury and that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his injury was substantially occasioned by his drug use. Appellant appealed, arguing that the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the Commission lacked the authority to make credibility determinations contrary to those made by an ALJ. Currently before the Supreme Court was Defendant's motion to supplement the record with affidavits and depositions that Appellant attached to a brief he previously filed. The Supreme Court remanded to the Commission to settle the record to determine whether the documents were actually placed in the record. View "Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing" on Justia Law

Appellant received an injury during his employment with Appellee. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denied Appellant's claim for benefits based on a finding that Appellant tested positive for illegal drugs after the injury and that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his injury was substantially occasioned by his drug use. Appellant appealed, contending (1) the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the structure of the Commission was unconstitutional. Currently before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion to supplement the record. The Court remanded to the Commission to settle the record with regard to certain affidavits and depositions. View "Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing" on Justia Law