Summary
finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that just cause existed for an employee's termination where the employee missed a substantial amount of work, disagreed with his supervisor about his projected return to work date, and argued that "he was discriminated against on the basis of non-merit factors when he was terminated rather than laid off or given extended leave"
Summary of this case from Moore v. State Merit Emp. Relations Bd.Opinion
C.A. No. 00A-11-001 HDR
Submitted: February 20, 2002
Decided: May 24, 2002
Upon Appeal from a Decision of the Merit Employee Relations Board
AFFIRMED
Roy S. Shiels, Esq. of Brown, Shiels, Beauregard Chasanov, Dover, Delaware, for Appellant.
Ilona M. Kirshon, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellee.
ORDER
This 24th day of May, 2002, upon consideration of the briefs of counsel and the record in this case, it appears that:
(1) Lyle DeMarie has appealed the decision of the Merit Employee Relations Board ("the Board") which upheld the termination of his employment with the Delaware Department of Transportation ("the Department"). Because the decision of the Board is supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal error, it is affirmed.
(2) Appellant was terminated from his employment as an auditor with the Department on February 24, 1999. His termination, according to his superiors, was a result of his missing a substantial amount of work. The time out of work, according to Appellant, was due to injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The Department claims to have had substantial difficulty pinpointing the exact nature of Appellant's injury and the date upon which he would be able to return to work. Appellant also had a disagreement with his immediate supervisor regarding his projected return to work date. Following his termination, Appellant grieved his termination to the Board, asserting that his termination was in violation of Merit Rule No. 15.1 because it was, he alleges, executed without just cause. Appellant also asserted that the termination was in violation of Merit Rule No. 19.0100, alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of non-merit factors when he was terminated rather than laid off or given extended leave.
(3) The Board upheld the termination. Based on the facts as the Board found them, Appellant did not establish that the Department had abused its discretion in electing to terminate him rather than granting extended leave, or that he was improperly discriminated against on the basis of non-merit factors. The Board found that the decision to terminate the Appellant was made according to the discretion of the Department following review of both his performance and attendance.
(4) Appellant has appealed the Board's decision to this Court, arguing that the Board committed legal error by applying the wrong legal criteria to his grievance. Appellant claims that, because he is alleging discrimination on the basis of non-merit factors, it was inappropriate for the Board simply to conclude that the Department had not abused its discretion in choosing to terminate Appellant.
(5) On appeals from the Merit Employee Relations Board, as on appeals from other state administrative agencies, the Superior Court must limit its scope of review to correcting errors of law and determining whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. If there is substantial evidence and no mistake in law, the Board's decision will be affirmed. This Court may not weigh the evidence, determine credibility, or make its own factual findings.
Tulou v. Raytheon Service Co., 659 A.2d 796, 802 (Del.Super.Ct. 1995).
Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994).
See Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965); Guions v. Protection Techn., 1999 Del. LEXIS 570 (Del.Super.Ct.).
(6) In the present case, the Board found that the Department properly exercised its discretion when it decided not to grant extended personal leave to the Appellant. The Board considered the evidence and ruled that Appellant's allegation of discrimination was unfounded. The Board also found that Appellant's termination had not been shown to be improper or inappropriate under the Merit Rules, either under Chapter 15 or 19. After a review of the proceedings before the Board, I find that these determinations are supported by substantial evidence on the record.
(7) Because the Board's findings of fact which are supported by substantial evidence refute even a prima facie claim of discrimination, Appellant's claim on appeal that the wrong legal criteria were applied by the Board is without merit.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Merit Employee Relations Board is AFFIRMED.