Opinion
C.A. No. S09A-002-RFS.
January 14, 2010.
Amy Welsh, Milton, DE.
Dear Ms. Welsh:
Pending before me is your appeal of a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board"). The Board found that you have been eligible for unemployment benefits since February 16, 2009, when you quit your full-time attendance at school to find work.
You now seek to obtain a reversal of the Appeals Referee's denial of your petition of benefits from December 1, 2008 through February 16, 2009, when you were laid off from your job at the Admiral Hotel, in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. You had been working from 3 to 11 p.m. at the Hotel since August 2007 and attending full-time classes during the day. There is a rebuttable presumption that a student, whether full or part-time, is not available for work. The Appeals Referee found that you did not rebut the presumption because you were limiting your job search by not seeking any 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. jobs. Based on Morgan and the record evidence of the regularity of your work, there is no error in this conclusion.
Morgan v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 416 A.2d 1227 (Del. Super. Ct. 1980).
When you appeared before the Board you had quit school to look for a job. The Board found that you were available for work and therefore eligible for unemployment benefits as of February 16, 2009. The Court finds no error of fact or law in the Board's decision, and that decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
Title 19 Del. C. § 3323(a) provides in part as follows:
In any judicial proceeding under this section, the findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the Court shall be confined to questions of law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.