LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Legal Newsline) – Rebriefing has been ordered by an Arkansas appeals court in a former city of Hot Springs employee's lawsuit over his termination because his brief was not in compliance with state court rules.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals called for the rebriefing in Danny Bugg’s second appeal in his case against Director of the Department of Workforce Services Daryl Bassett and the city of Hot Springs. Bugg sued after the workforce department denied his request for unemployment benefits under the notion that he quit his job with the city.
The Court of Appeals previously remanded the case back to the board after the board failed to address some of Bugg’s concerns. Now that the board has ruled on those, the Court of Appeals ordered a rebriefing, citing issues with Bugg’s appeal.
“Bugg has entirely failed to correct his previous deficiencies and has created others,” wrote Judge Phillip Whiteaker.
He pointed out that the transcript of a previous hearing included 52 pages, yet Bugg’s abstract is only four pages.
“The transcript contains 13 pages of testimony from a representative from the city, Police Chief [Jason] Stachey, but Bugg’s abstract reduces this testimony to a single sentence”, the judge wrote.
Bugg’s addendum also fell short. While he included what was said to be the board’s ruling, it’s not an actual copy of the decision. Whiteaker, along with judges Ray Abramson and Brandon Harrison who concurred, stated that Bugg “appears to have reproduced the decision of the board and inserted paragraph numbers or headings between the paragraphs of the document.”
Considering this, the judges couldn’t grasp the case’s actual merits.
Bugg's lawsuit sparked during his time as the Animal Control Services (ACS) Supervisor. He expressed, via an email, his concerns over how the department was operated in September 2017. The email read in part, according to the opinion, “Looking at my calender, it appears Friday, Jan. 5th, of 2018 would be as prime a day to make my exit from the city of Hot Springs. This is NOT my retirement, quite frankly I feel there is much more I can do in this field of work. I simply am unable to continue in a format where the likelihood of this department stepping into operational failure appears to be the path we will embark upon beginning next year…”
While he said it wasn’t his intent or notice to retire, the city replied to the email and said it would take it as such. After a back-and-forth dispute of whether Bugg was really going to retire, he was “relieved of his duties” in December 2017, and received payment until Jan. 5, according to the opinion.
Bugg requested unemployment but the Department of Workforce denied his application, stating that he quit his job because he was unhappy. Bugg appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, who agreed that Bugg resigned, causing Bugg to appeal to the board, which also affirmed Bugg resigned.
The board didn’t address other concerns Bugg had, which caused the current court to remand the case back to the board. Now that the board has addressed those concerns, the appeals court ruled that Bugg’s appeal doesn’t comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5).