STEPHANIE R. COKER 
APPELLANT 
V. 
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 
WORKFORCE SERVICES, AND 
JAMES LAW FIRM 
APPELLEES 

In this unbriefed unemployment case, appellant, Stephanie Coker, was initially 
denied unemployment benefits at the department level, but the Appeal Tribunal reversed 
that decision and awarded her benefits. Coker’s employer, the James Law Firm, then 
appealed the appeal-tribunal decision to the Board of Review, which reversed the Appeal 
Tribunal and denied her application for unemployment benefits on the basis that she was 
discharged from her last work for misconduct in connection with the work. Coker now 
appeals to this court, arguing that there was not substantial evidence to support the Board 
of Review’s finding. We affirm the Board of Review’s denial of benefits. 


Here, Coker was employed at the James Law Firm as a receptionist/secretary for 
approximately two weeks before being fired. At the hearing, Toni Coleman, a paralegal at 
the law firm, testified that on the morning in question, the firm was busy and there were 
numerous motions that needed to be filed at the courthouse. Coleman said that Coker 
had told her on several prior occasions that she needed to go to Office Depot, and that 
Coker had told her again that morning, to which Coleman had responded that Coker did 
not have time for Office Depot that day. Coleman testified that she later learned that 
Coker procured the office credit card from another firm employee, went to the 
courthouse, went to Office Depot, picked up her lunch, and arrived back at the office 
three hours later. 

Coker testified that she was a receptionist/secretary for the law firm from October 
2 until October 12, 2006, when she was fired by Bill James, an owner of the firm. Coker 
explained that she got the company credit card from Joe Barraza, another paralegal at the 
firm, and that he told her to go to Office Depot because she had to return a keyboard and 
purchase some office supplies. She explained that she was gone for three or four hours 
because she had to take motions to the courthouse and because Barraza sent her on other 
errands, including Office Depot. Coker stated that she told Barraza that Coleman did not 
want her to go to Office Depot that day, but that Barraza told her to go ahead and to go 
then because James was out of the office and it was better to go at that time. Coker said 
that she purchased the office supplies on her list, including the cheapest calendar she could
find so that she could keep track of when to send out letters to clients regarding their 
court dates. 

When questioned by the hearing officer about whether she went back to Coleman 
and told her that Barraza had told her to go to Office Depot after Coleman had told 
Coker not to go, Coker said that she did not let Coleman know. However, Coker said 
that she asked Barraza to let Coleman know that he had told Coker to go to Office Depot 
if Coleman asked where she was and that Barraza said that he would take care of it. 
Coker testified that she did not check with Coleman to see if Barraza had spoken with her 
and that she just assumed that he had “covered it.” Coker also said that she used her debit 
card to pay for an office key to be made for her because Barraza told her that James 
wanted her to have a key. 

Under questioning by James, Coker said that Coleman had told her not to go to 
Office Depot on the day she was dismissed, but that Barraza had told her to go because 
James was out of the office. James asked Coker if she would agree that she got an office 
key made without authorization, and Coker told him that she did not have authorization 
from him, but that Barraza had told her that James wanted a key made for her. Coker 
admitted that she was gone for four hours that day, but she said that she went to the 
courthouse, to city hall, to the sheriff’s office, back to the office and to Office Depot, and 
then she took her one-hour lunch. 

Joe Barraza testified that Coker was terminated for taking too long running errands 
and for unauthorized credit-card purchases. Barraza said that Coker asked him if she could
go to Office Depot and that he told her “yes.” However, he stated that Coker did not tell 
him that Coleman had told her earlier not to go to Office Depot when he gave her 
permission to go. Barraza said that he told Coker to buy a calendar and that he gave her 
an office key. Barraza said that he did not recall that there was a deadline for returning the 
keyboard to Office Depot. He also denied that Coker told him that Coleman did not 
want her to go to Office Depot and that he said to go anyway. 

In denying Coker’s claim on the basis of misconduct connected with the work, the 
Board of Review found that Coker “had been directed by one supervisor not to go to 
Office Depot but circumvented that supervisor’s authority by seeking permission from a 
second supervisor without informing him what the first supervisor had directed.” We 
hold that there is substantial evidence to support the Board of Review’s decision. 
Although Coker testified that she told Barraza that Coleman had told her not to go to 
Office Depot but Barraza told her to go anyway, Barraza flatly denied that Coker had told 
him that Coleman did not want her to go. The Board of Review believed Barraza’s 
version, which it was entitled to do, and his testimony constitutes substantial evidence that 
Coker did not tell him that Coleman had already told her not to go to Office Depot 
before Coker came to him and received permission to go. Viewing the evidence and all 
reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the Board of 
Review’s findings, we hold that Coker’s actions constituted misconduct in connection 
with the work. We therefore affirm the denial of unemployment benefits.

Affirmed. 
PITTMAN, C. J., HART, ROBBINS, and HEFFLEY, JJ., agree. 



GRIFFEN, J., dissents. 

Wendell Griffen, J., 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 instructions, 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.