×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Arkansas Work Release Prisoner Entitled to Unemployment Benefits
The Arkansas Court of Appeals, Division, II, held that a work release prisoner who loses his job as a result of a transfer to a prison to prepare him for parole is entitled to unemployment benefits as a result of losing his job. Kirk Rankin was an Arkansas state prisoner in a work release program. He was employed by Ready Temps Employment at the Nucor-Yamato Steel Mill in Blytheville. While working at Nucor Steel he was transferred to a different prison and no longer allowed to participate in work release as preparation for his parole.
Rankin then applied for unemployment benefits. His application was denied. A Board of Review hearing officer affirmed the denial, holding that while Rankin had no choice in the matter, he "voluntarily left his last work without good cause connected with the work." This was upheld by the Appeal Tribunal.
Rankin sought further review. In a brief opinion, the appeals court ruled in his favor. Noting that they will support Board of Review decisions if they are supported by substantial evidence, the court held the issue in this case was whether Rankin had exercised his own free will or choice in the separation from his employment.
"In the case at bar the Board found that Rankin had no choice in the matter and the evidence was undisputed that this was so. It follows that the Board's finding that Rankin voluntarily left his last work is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore reverse and remand this case to the Board of Review for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." See: Rankin v. Director, Employment Security Department, 78 S.W.3d 885 (AR Ct. App. Div. II 2003). g
Rankin then applied for unemployment benefits. His application was denied. A Board of Review hearing officer affirmed the denial, holding that while Rankin had no choice in the matter, he "voluntarily left his last work without good cause connected with the work." This was upheld by the Appeal Tribunal.
Rankin sought further review. In a brief opinion, the appeals court ruled in his favor. Noting that they will support Board of Review decisions if they are supported by substantial evidence, the court held the issue in this case was whether Rankin had exercised his own free will or choice in the separation from his employment.
"In the case at bar the Board found that Rankin had no choice in the matter and the evidence was undisputed that this was so. It follows that the Board's finding that Rankin voluntarily left his last work is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore reverse and remand this case to the Board of Review for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." See: Rankin v. Director, Employment Security Department, 78 S.W.3d 885 (AR Ct. App. Div. II 2003). g
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Rankin v. Director, Employment Sec. Dept.
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 79 S.W.3d 885 (Ar. Ct. App. Div. II 2002) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
RANKIN v. DIRECTOR, EMP. SECURITY DEPT., 78 Ark.App. 174, 79 S.W.3d 885 (Ark.App. 07/03/2002)
[1] Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II
[2] No. E 02-40
[3] 78 Ark. App. 174, 79 S.W.3d 885
[4] July 3, 2002
[5] KIRK J. RANKIN, APPELLANT
V.
DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, APPELLEE
[6] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
[7] 1. Unemployment compensation standard of review. The appellate court will affirm the decision of the Board of Review if it is supported by substantial evidence; the question is whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon the evidence before it.
[8] 2. Unemployment compensation "voluntarily quit" test for. Other state courts, in interpreting the term "voluntarily quit," have held that the test is whether the individual has exercised his own free will or choice in the separation.
[9] 3. Unemployment compensation Board's finding not supported by substantial evidence reversed & remanded. Where the Board found that appellant had no choice when he was transferred away from his job by the Board of Corrections in preparation for his eventual parole, and the evidence was undisputed that this was so, it followed that the Board's finding that appellant voluntarily left his last work pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513 (Repl. 2002) was not supported by substantial evidence; the case was reversed & remanded to the Board of Review for further proceedings.
[10] Appeal from the Arkansas Board of Review; reversed & remanded.
[11] Appellant, pro se.
[12] Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.
[13] The opinion of the court was delivered by: John E. Jennings, Judge.
[14] Kirk Rankin appeals from a decision of the Board of Review denying him unemployment benefits on a finding that he voluntarily left his last work pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513 (Repl. 2002). We hold that the finding is not supported by substantial evidence and reverse.
[78 ArkApp Page 175]
[15] Rankin was an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Correction. While there he participated in a work release program. He was employed by Ready Temps Employment, LLC, and was placed by Ready Temps at the Nucor-Yamato Steel Mill just outside of Blytheville, Arkansas. While working at Nucor Steel he was transferred by the Department of Correction to the Brickeys Unit for the purpose of his eventual parole and was no longer allowed to participate in the work release program.
[16] Although the hearing officer found that Rankin had no choice in the matter, she also found that he "voluntarily left his last work without good cause connected with the work." The Board of Review affirmed and adopted the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.
[17] We will affirm the decision of the Board of Review if it is supported by substantial evidence. Hiner v. Director, 61 Ark. App. 139, 965 S.W.2d 785 (1998). The question is whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon the evidence before it. Rodriguez v. Director, 59 Ark. App. 8, 952 S.W.2d 186 (1997). In Dingmann v. Travelers Country Club, 420 N.W.2d 231 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988), the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the term "voluntarily quit." The court held that the test is whether the individual has exercised his own free will or choice in the separation. See Dingmann, 420 N.W.2d at 233.
[18] In the case at bar the Board found that Rankin had no choice in the matter and the evidence was undisputed that this was so. It follows that the Board's finding that Rankin voluntarily left his last work is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore reverse and remand this case to the Board of Review for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[19] Reversed and Remanded.
[20] Griffen and Neal, JJ., agree.
[1] Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II
[2] No. E 02-40
[3] 78 Ark. App. 174, 79 S.W.3d 885
[4] July 3, 2002
[5] KIRK J. RANKIN, APPELLANT
V.
DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, APPELLEE
[6] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
[7] 1. Unemployment compensation standard of review. The appellate court will affirm the decision of the Board of Review if it is supported by substantial evidence; the question is whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon the evidence before it.
[8] 2. Unemployment compensation "voluntarily quit" test for. Other state courts, in interpreting the term "voluntarily quit," have held that the test is whether the individual has exercised his own free will or choice in the separation.
[9] 3. Unemployment compensation Board's finding not supported by substantial evidence reversed & remanded. Where the Board found that appellant had no choice when he was transferred away from his job by the Board of Corrections in preparation for his eventual parole, and the evidence was undisputed that this was so, it followed that the Board's finding that appellant voluntarily left his last work pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513 (Repl. 2002) was not supported by substantial evidence; the case was reversed & remanded to the Board of Review for further proceedings.
[10] Appeal from the Arkansas Board of Review; reversed & remanded.
[11] Appellant, pro se.
[12] Phyllis A. Edwards, for appellee.
[13] The opinion of the court was delivered by: John E. Jennings, Judge.
[14] Kirk Rankin appeals from a decision of the Board of Review denying him unemployment benefits on a finding that he voluntarily left his last work pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-513 (Repl. 2002). We hold that the finding is not supported by substantial evidence and reverse.
[78 ArkApp Page 175]
[15] Rankin was an inmate at the Arkansas Department of Correction. While there he participated in a work release program. He was employed by Ready Temps Employment, LLC, and was placed by Ready Temps at the Nucor-Yamato Steel Mill just outside of Blytheville, Arkansas. While working at Nucor Steel he was transferred by the Department of Correction to the Brickeys Unit for the purpose of his eventual parole and was no longer allowed to participate in the work release program.
[16] Although the hearing officer found that Rankin had no choice in the matter, she also found that he "voluntarily left his last work without good cause connected with the work." The Board of Review affirmed and adopted the decision of the Appeal Tribunal.
[17] We will affirm the decision of the Board of Review if it is supported by substantial evidence. Hiner v. Director, 61 Ark. App. 139, 965 S.W.2d 785 (1998). The question is whether the Board could reasonably reach its decision upon the evidence before it. Rodriguez v. Director, 59 Ark. App. 8, 952 S.W.2d 186 (1997). In Dingmann v. Travelers Country Club, 420 N.W.2d 231 (Minn.Ct.App. 1988), the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted the term "voluntarily quit." The court held that the test is whether the individual has exercised his own free will or choice in the separation. See Dingmann, 420 N.W.2d at 233.
[18] In the case at bar the Board found that Rankin had no choice in the matter and the evidence was undisputed that this was so. It follows that the Board's finding that Rankin voluntarily left his last work is not supported by substantial evidence. We therefore reverse and remand this case to the Board of Review for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[19] Reversed and Remanded.
[20] Griffen and Neal, JJ., agree.