Opinion
C.A. No. 08A-08-019 RRC.
Submitted: January 4, 2010.
Decided: March 2, 2010.
On Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
AFFIRMED.Nykole M. Broadnax, Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se.
Barry M. Willoughby, Esquire, Lauren E. Moak, Esquire, and Scott A. Holt, Esquire, Young Conaway Stargatt Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Appellee, West End Neighborhood House.
ORDER
This 2nd day of March, 2010, upon consideration of Appellant's appeal from a decision on the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("the Board"), it appears to the Court that:
1. On April 25, 2008, appellant, Nykole Broadnax, was terminated from her position as a part-time student assistant by West End Neighborhood House ("West End"). Appellant was terminated as a result of a confrontation that occurred on April 24, 2009, between herself and a program director employed by West End.
Record at 39-40.
Id. at 41.
The confrontation occurred while appellant was working at the front desk. An unidentified client of West End was arguing with a friend on the telephone. Soon after the argument, one of appellant's co-workers was told to call the police if the unidentified client returned.
Id. at 47.
Id.
Id.
In response to this request to call police, appellant commented that "they always call the cops on somebody." This comment led to a heated exchange between appellant and a West End program director. Although there were conflicting accounts of what was said during the argument, the incident report that was filed in connection with the argument stated that appellant "was becoming disrespectful and talking quite loud and cussing. . . ." Thereafter, appellant was terminated by West End.
Id.
Id. at 31.
Apparently, this argument was not the first confrontation involving appellant. Appellant had previously been warned about her behavior and use of abusive language from an incident that had occurred on October 5, 2007. Id. at 43.
2. On April 27, 2008, appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits that was subsequently denied on May 20, 2008. The claim was denied based on the findings of the Claims Deputy that appellant was terminated for "just cause."
Id. at 22-23.
Id. at 23.
On May 23, 2008, appellant appealed the denial of benefits. A hearing was held on June 19, 2008 and on June 24, 2008 the Appeals Referee affirmed the decision the Claims deputy, findings that appellant "knew or should have known that (her) conduct was a terminable offense."
Id. at 24.
Id. at 28-29.
On June 27, 2008, appellant filed an appeal with the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. On August 20, 2008, the Board held a hearing to take additional testimony. After the hearing was completed, the Board affirmed the Referee's decision on August 22, 2008. The Board reviewed all the evidence presented and concluded that the April 24, 2008 "confrontation involved verbal abuse, disrespect, and provocation, regardless of the use of profanity." Thus, the Board concluded that appellant was terminated for "just cause" and denied her claim for benefits.
Id. at 59.
Id. at 66-67.
Id. at 67.
3. On August 29, 2008, appellant filed her appeal with this Court. Appellant contends that the Board did not properly assess the credibility of witnesses and states that "[t]o my understanding, I was denied benefits because of the written statement Mr. Johnson provided along with his credibility, in terms of the position he holds." Appellant argues that she did not use "one foul word" and the Board's decision is only supported by "hear say [sic]."
Id. at 50. Appellant's "Opening Brief" is a half-page letter. The "Reply Brief" is one page.
Op. Br. at 1.
Reply Br. at 1.
In response, West End argues that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. West End asserts that it is "uncontested that [appellant] engaged in an argument with [a West End employee] on April 24, 2008." Additionally, West End argues that the Board was entitled to give "credence" to an incident report, which stated that appellant "was becoming disrespectful and talking quite loud and cussing . . ." West End argues that appellant's behavior was a violation of the Code of Ethics, and appellant's termination was proper because appellant had been previously warned about her behavior and "violation of any of the (Code's) provision can result in disciplinary action, including termination."
Deputy Attorney General Philip G. Johnson, Esquire entered an appearance on behalf of the Unemployment Insurance Board, but did not file any response to appellant's appeal (and was not required to file such a response).
Ans. Br. at 8.
Id.
Id.
4. While the Superior Court is empowered to review findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, the scope of review is "limited to a determination of whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error."
Starkey v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 340 A.2d 165, 166 (Del. Super. 1975).
"When reviewing a decision on appeal from an agency, the Superior Court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings." The Board acts as the trier of fact.
Holowka v. New Castle County Bd. of Adjustment, 2003 WL 21001026, at *3 (Del. Super.).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965).
In determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Board's decision, this Court must look at the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. If a decision of the Board is supported by substantial evidence, the Court must affirm that decision even if the Court might have, in the first instance, reached an opposite conclusion.
Pochvatilla v. United States Postal Service, 1997 WL 524062, at *2 (Del. Super.).
Brogan v. Value City Furniture, 2002 WL 499721, at *2 (Del. Super. 2002).
5. After reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, this Court holds that there was substantial evidence in the record to affirm the Board's (and the Referee's) decision that appellant was terminated for "just cause." "Just cause" has been found to exist when an employee engages in a "willful or wanton act in violation of either the employer's interest, or of the employee's duties, or of the employee's standard of conduct." "An additional factor in determining `just cause' is whether an employee had received a prior warning."
Starkey, 340 A.2d at 166.
Pochvatilla, 1997 WL 524062, at * 3.
Here, the Board had evidence that appellant had an argument with a West End employee on April 24, 2008. The Board, in its capacity as the finder of fact, was entitled to rely on the incident report, which stated that "appellant "was becoming disrespectful and talking quite loud and cussing. . . ." Finally, appellant, herself, admitted to being a "smart aleck."
The Board ultimately accepted West End's testimony, including the incident report, and determined that appellant was fired for violations of West End's Code of Ethics. Although this Court has some sympathy to appellant's situation, this Court is bound by the determinations of the Board regarding credibility.
The evidence presented by West End regarding the argument on April 24, 2008, combined with evidence that appellant had previously been reprimanded for bad behavior gave the Board "substantial evidence" to conclude that appellant had been terminated for "just cause" in violation of the West End Code of Ethics. Accordingly, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.
See, e.g., Mergliano v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2009 WL 3069676 (Del. Super.) (holding that there was a showing of "just cause" when an employee "became loud and disrespectful in front of customers[.]"); Pochvatilla, 1997 WL 524062 (holding there was a showing of "just cause" when an employee was terminated for making "an inflammatory comment").
IT IS SO ORDERED.