Opinion
No. 03A-09-003 HDR.
Submitted: January 23, 2004.
Decided: April 26, 2004.
UPON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Bertha Freeman, Hartly, Delaware, pro se.
Rosemary V. Everton, Seaford, Delaware, pro se, for Appellee Mid-Atlantic Services.
ORDER
This 26th day of April 2004, upon consideration of the Appellant's brief and the record below, it appears that:
(1) This is an appeal by Claimant, Bertha Freeman (" Freeman"), from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (" Board") terminating all her unemployment benefits. As denial of benefits was based upon improper interpretation of 19 Del. C. § 3302(17), the decision of the Board must be reversed.
(2) On February 28, 2003, Freeman, now age 73, lost her part-time job without good cause. She applied for and received unemployment benefits of $146.00 weekly. On May 19, 2003, Freeman had an interview for another part-time job. Before her interview, Freeman called the Unemployment Office and inquired whether accepting this job would interfere with her unemployment benefits. She was told that the job would have to pay around $225.00 per week in order to interfere with her current benefits. Earnings above a certain amount would reduce benefits on a dollar for dollar basis. Freeman was aware that accepting the job would reduce benefits, but that she was required to find employment or lose benefits altogether.
(3) Freeman accepted the job, working 2.5 hours a day, 5 days a week, at $7.00 per hour, totaling $87.50 per week. Following Freeman's acceptance of the job, the Unemployment Office declared that she was no longer qualified as unemployed and cancelled her benefits.
(4) Freeman appealed this decision to the Board. The Board determined that she was ineligible for benefits as defined by 19 Del. C. § 3302(17), after taking the new part-time job.
(5) In an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, this Court must determine whether the Board's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Weathersby v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 1995 WL 465326, at *1 (Del.Super.Ct. 1995) citing Ridings v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 407 A.2d 238, 239 (Del Super. Ct. 1979).
Farley v. Flagship Resturant and Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 1995 WL 339066, at * 2 (Del.Super.Ct. 1995) citations omitted.
(6) In order to qualify for unemployment benefits a person must be unemployed and meet the eligibility requirements of 19 Del. C. § 3302(17). This statute states:
"Unemployment" exists and an individual is "unemployed" in any week during which the individual performs no services and with respect to which no wages are payable to the individual, or in any week of less than full-time work if the wages payable to the individual with respect to such week are less than the individual's weekly benefit amount plus whichever is the greater of $10 or 50% of the individual's weekly benefit amount. The Department shall prescribe regulations applicable to unemployed individuals making such distinctions in the procedures as to the total unemployment, part-total unemployment, partial unemployment of individuals attached to their regular jobs and other forms of short-term work as the Department deems necessary.
(7) The pertinent part of this Statute reads, "or in any week of less than full-time work if the wages payable to the individual with respect to such week are less than the individual's weekly benefit amount plus whichever is the greater of $10 or 50% of the individual's weekly benefit amount."
(8) Freeman's part-time weekly wage is $87.50 and her weekly benefit is $146.00. Fifty percent of her weekly benefit is $73.00 which exceeds $10.00.
(9) Because Freeman's part-time wages ($87.50) are less than her weekly benefit plus the greater of $10 or 50% of her weekly benefit (which totals $219.00 in this case), Freeman qualifies as "unemployed" within the meaning of 19 Del. C. § 3302(17). She is entitled to unemployment benefits of $58.50 per week which represents the difference between her part-time wages and her weekly unemployment benefit. The Board erred as a matter of law when it upheld the decision to terminate her benefits.
NOW THEREFORE, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.