Opinion
C.A. No. 04A-09-007-JEB.
Submitted: April 19, 2005.
Decided: April 22, 2005.
Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Affirmed.
Angelique R. Davis, Pro Se, 148 Stanley Lane, New Castle, Delaware 19720.
David H. Williams, Esquire, and Jill S. DiSciullo, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Christiana Care.
OPINION
This the Court's decision on Claimant Angelique Davis' appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") denying Claimant's petition for unemployment benefits. For the reasons explained below, the Board's decision is affirmed.
FACTS
Claimant worked for Christiana Care ("Employer") as a service assistant from August 2000 until May 2004. She was responsible for transporting patients back to their rooms after physical therapy sessions. In April 2004, Claimant was formally reprimanded for leaving her work area before the end of her shift. She had left her work area 30 minutes early without receiving approval from her supervisor. Claimant told her supervisors that it was customary for employees to leave work early the day before a holiday vacation without obtaining approval, but there was no record of such a practice. Claimant was placed on a decision-making leave and given a final warning about leaving her post without approval.
On May 18, 2004, Claimant's supervisor, Stephen Scruggs, went to the physical therapy area where several patients were awaiting transport back to their rooms. Scruggs found Claimant and another patient escort in the smoking area. He beckoned to them to come inside but they continued to smoke. He then went outside and asked them to return to their duties. Both escorts followed Scruggs back in to the building but Claimant told Scruggs that she wanted a break from all the walking. Several days later, Claimant as discharged for idleness and for taking an unauthorized break.
Claimant filed a petition for unemployment insurance benefits, which was denied by the claims deputy, the appeals referee and the Board. Claimant appealed to this Court, rearguing the issues presenting below and offering additional evidence. As explained below, the administrative decision is affirmed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing an administrative board decision, the Court's role is to determine whether the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are free from legal error. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions credibility or make factual findings. It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the Board's findings.
Ridings v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 407 A.2d 238, 239 (Del.Super.Ct. 1979).
Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1998).
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1960).
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Claimant challenges the factual findings reached below. She asserts that she was taking a small break at a time when her services were not needed. She asserts that there were other patient escorts available and that she herself could have been paged by Mr. Scruggs. She further contends that Christiana Hospital was trying to get rid of the patient escorts and that Mr. Scruggs abused his power in following her outside rather than paging her. Claimant submitted two letters from former Christiana Care employees vouching for Claimant's honesty. The letters are not part of the certified record and will not be considered by the Court on appeal. Employer argues that the Board's finding that Claimant was fired for just cause in connection with her work is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error.Under Delaware law, a person is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if she was discharged for just cause in connection with her work. Just cause for discharge is defined as a wilful or wanton act, or pattern of conduct which violate the employer's interest, the employee's duties, or the employee's expected standard of conduct. The referee found that Claimant was fired for just cause and the Board agreed. The record is clear that Claimant violated a rule and that there had been prior infractions about which she had been warned about her behavior:
Krouse v. Cape Henlopen School District, 1997 WL 817846 (Del.Super.).
Lack of courtesy and cooperation — March 31, 2004 Work performance — April 5, 2002 Lack of courtesy and cooperation — April 3, 2002 Work performance — March 7, 2002.
In April 2004, Claimant was reprimanded for leaving work early and placed on leave pending a decision as to the appropriate resolution. She also received a final warning. In May she took a cigarette break without obtaining the assent of her supervisor, and there is no dispute that taking an unauthorized break is just cause for dismissal. The record supports the administrative finding that Claimant was discharged for good cause. Claimant's arguments on appeal are exclusively factual, and both the referee's findings and the Board's findings are well supported by the record. The Court finds no error of law, and the decision is therefore Affirmed. It Is So ORDERED.