Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Appellants, a clinic study center and three medical doctors, filed an action against Appellees, Dr. Samuel and Marilyn Boellner, alleging breaches of contract for a covenant not to compete, tortious inteference with a business expectancy, defamation, and injunctive relief. Appellees counterclaimed for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and declaratory judgment on the noncompete agreement. The trial court returned verdicts in favor of both Appellants and Appellees. Appellants later caused a writ of garnishment to be issued to reach assets of Marilyn Boellner held in an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). Appellants moved to declare the IRA statute unconstitutional. The circuit court denied Appellants' motion and quashed the writ of garnishment. Appellants appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute was constitutional, as the IRA exemption provided in Ark. Code Ann. 16-66-220(a)(1) is not an absolute exemption of all personal property, and, as such, does not offend Ark. Const. art. IV, section 2.

Appellee Cory Duffy filed a complaint alleging that he was shot twice while standing outside The Entertainer, Inc. waiting for a taxi. Appellee named as defendants The Entertainer, an Arkansas corporation, and Charles Wells, the alcohol-permit holder. Appellee asserted claims for breach of high duty of care, negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision and training. Appellee also sought punitive damages. The district court subsequently granted default judgment against both Defendants. Appellants filed a motion for a new trial, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial; (2) The Entertainer did not show that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in entering the default judgment against it; and (3) the circuit court's award of punitive damages was not clearly erroneous.

The Arkansas School for the Deaf's Board of Trustees terminated Appellant Darleen Tripcony from her employment with the School as part of a reduction in force (RIF). The Arkansas State Employee Grievance Appeal Panel (SEGAP) upheld the Board's RIF of Tripcony's position. Tripcony subsequently filed a complaint in circuit court requesting judicial review of the decision by SEGAP upholding the denial of her appeal and further sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the School. The circuit court dismissed the complaint on the basis that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that Tripcony's claim against the School's Board of Trustees was barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The court also dismissed Tripcony's claims against several members of the Board in their individual capacities based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to conduct a judicial review of the termination of a state employee; and (2) it necessarily followed that the Court also lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal issues relating to the immunity issues.

Employer began withholding a portion of wages from Employee's paycheck as the result of an income-withholding order stemming from child-support arrearages. Employee filed a complaint against Employer, asking the circuit court to enjoin Employer from withholding further amounts and that he be awarded damages for all amounts wrongfully withheld. The circuit court dismissed Employee's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court correctly dismissed the case with prejudice, as Employee was barred from bringing this civil action against Employer, who was required to comply with the withholding order; and (2) the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act was constitutional.

Donnell Richard filed a complaint in the federal district court in Texas against Union Pacific alleging that, during the course and scope of his employment, he suffered physical injuries because of Union Pacific's negligence. Richard then filed a notice of nonsuit without prejudice, which the district court granted. Richard refiled his cause of action in the circuit court. Union Pacific moved to dismiss Richard's complaint. After finding that Richard's summons and service of summons was defective, the circuit court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that in light of Richard's prior voluntary dismissal of his suit in Texas, the case should be dismissed with prejudice under Ark. R. Civ. P. 41 because the parties did not enter into a joint agreement regarding dismissal of the first complaint. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal with prejudice, holding that the circuit court erred in its interpretation and application of the two-dismissal rule in Rule 41 to the facts of this case. Remanded.

Employee had previously been injured on the job and was working on light duty when Employer terminated Employee's employment due to insubordination and gross misconduct. The ALJ denied Employee's claim for temporary-total disability for the remainder of his disability period. The Workers' Compensation Commission reversed on the grounds that termination for misconduct is not a sufficient basis for a finding that the employee refused suitable employment under Ark. Code Ann. 11-9-526, which provides that an injured employee who refuses suitable employment shall not be entitled to compensation during the period of his refusal. Accordingly, the Commission found that Employee was entitled to temporary-total-disability benefits for the remainder of his disability period, that he was entitled to wage-loss benefits at the rate of five percent, and that he was thus entitled to attorney's fees. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the decision of the Commission, holding that the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and correct statutory interpretation.

Employee was injured in an automobile accident while working for Employer. Employer had a state-certified workers' compensation plan in effect that provided coverage to Employee, and some of Employee's medical bills were paid by the workers' compensation carrier. Employee had a policy with State Farm that included no-fault medical coverage. State Farm, however, denied coverage to Employee under a policy exclusion that denied coverage for an insured if any workers' compensation law applied to the insured's bodily injury. Employee filed an action against State Farm, seeking recovery of benefits under the no-fault medical provision. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law where, in accordance with previous precedent, the exclusion clearly applied in all scenarios where workers' compensation benefits either had been paid in whole or in part or could be paid in whole or in part.

Monica Brodie, an African-American female, was employed by the City of Jonesboro when she applied for a promotion. When she was informed that she was not be receiving the promotion, she submitted a letter of resignation. Brodie later filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the City failed to promote her on account of her race. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) the circuit court did not properly evaluate this case under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework; and (2) the circuit court erred in treating Brodie's failure-to-promote claim as a case of constructive discharge where Brodie did not allege a constructive-discharge claim in her complaint or offer any evidence of constructive discharge.

The Harrisburg School District No. 6 and the Board of Education (the District) appealed an order from the circuit court that granted Appellee Byron Neal's motion for summary judgment. Mr. Neal was elected to one of five positions on the District's board of directors. His term did not expire until September, 2014. In February, 2010, the Weiner School District faced declining enrollment, and as a result, the Harrisburg and Weiner Districts entered into an agreement for an administrative annexation of the two districts. Mr. Neal was present at the February, 2010 meeting of the Harrisburg board of directors and voted in favor of the annexation. In March, an interim school board was formed from the annexed districts. The Harrisburg District chose its interim board members by selecting four of its five members to serve. Mr. Neal lost his position. In June, Mr. Neal filed his complaint with the circuit court to stop the District from removing him as a board member. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the District argued that state law gave it the authority to agree on how the board of directors would be staffed, and therefore the circuit court erred in granting Mr. Neal summary judgment. The Supreme Court found no error by the circuit court and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Mr. Neal.