Opinion
C.A. No. 00A-05-008.
Date Assigned: October 3, 2000.
Date Decided: January 30, 2001.
On Appeal from the Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Tiffany Lynn Lawson, pro se, 1921 Brian Circle, Bear, DE 19701.
Robert C. McDonald, Esquire, SILVERMAN MCDONALD, 1010 North Bancroft Parkway, Wilmington, Delaware 19805.
OPINION AND ORDER
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Tiffany Lawson was employed as a receptionist at the Sherif Zaki Salon from September of 1998 until she was fired on January 20, 2000, by the owner of the salon, Emon Zaki. The reasons given for her termination by Ms. Zaki were:
(a) She did not get along with other employees.
(b) She misrepresented the truth.
(c) She caused a stressful atmosphere at the salon.
(d) She inadequately performed her duties.
(e) She was suspected of stealing from the salon in 1996.
The relationship between Ms. Zaki and Ms. Lawson was strained from the inception of Ms. Lawson's employment at the salon. However, the tension between the two parties came to a head on January 20, 2000. On that date, Ms. Zaki was unable to go to work because her children were home from school due to a snow storm. Due to her inability to go to the salon and due to the increased telephone activity at the salon on days in which it snows, Ms. Zaki needed someone to assist answering the telephones at the salon that day. Ms. Zaki called Ms. Lawson, who was scheduled to work later that day, to ask if she could come to work early to assist with the telephones. Ms. Lawson agreed.
Shortly thereafter, Ms. Lawson called Ms. Zaki back and stated that she had been involved in an automobile accident. Furthermore, she told Ms. Zaki that not only would she be unable to make it to the salon early that day, she would not be in at all. Following this revelation, an argument ensued between the two of them which ended with Ms. Lawson's termination.
Ms. Lawson subsequently sought and was awarded unemployment benefits by the Claims Deputy. Ms. Zaki appealed this decision. The Appeals Referee affirmed the Claims Deputy's decision, finding that Ms. Lawson was fired without just cause. Ms. Zaki likewise appealed the decision of the Appeals Referee to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (UIAB). Following a hearing, the UIAB reversed the Referee's decision, finding that in light of Ms. Lawson's other infractions, she committed wilful or wanton misconduct when she yelled at Ms. Zaki. Lawson v. Sheruff Zaki Salon, Indus. Accident Bd., Appeal Docket No. 216639, Bd. Decision (April 26, 2000).
Ms. Lawson, pro se, now brings this appeal of the UIAB's decision. Ms. Lawson firmly disagrees with the factual findings of the UIAB. While she makes no specific legal argument as to the grounds upon which she brings this appeal, it becomes evident through her restatement of her version of the facts, that the basis of her appeal is that the UIAB's decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
Ms. Zaki, on the other hand, contends that the UIAB's decision is supported by substantial evidence and therefore should not be disturbed.
DISCUSSION
In reviewing a decision of the UIAB, this Court is bound by its findings if supported by substantial evidence and absent abuse of discretion or error of law. Ohrt v. Kentmore Home, Del. Super., C.A. No. 96A-01-005, Cooch, J. (Aug. 9, 1996) (Mem. Op. at 8). "Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Anchor Motor Freight v. Ciabattoni, Del. Super., 716 A.2d 154, 156 (1998); and Streett v. State, Del. Supr., 669 A.2d 9, 11 (1995). It "is more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance" of the evidence. City of Wilmington v. Clark, Del. Super., C.A. No. 90A-FE-2, Barron, J. (March 20, 1991) (Mem.Op. at 6). Therefore, since neither abuse of discretion nor error of law is alleged by Ms. Lawson, this Court's analysis of the UIAB's decision is limited to determining if it is supported by substantial evidence.
The evidence presented to the UIAB was primarily the conflicting testimony of the parties to the action. Ms. Zaki made various allegations of Ms. Lawson's conduct, including a statement that Ms. Lawson yelled at her. It was this statement upon which the UIAB based its decision by finding willful or wanton conduct. As can be expected, Ms. Lawson denied this allegation. Significantly, the UIAB expressly stated that it found Ms. Zaki's testimony to be more credible that of Ms. Lawson. Therefore, it held that Ms. Lawson's termination was proper and justified.
This Court is bound by the credibility determinations made by the UIAB. "The courts on appeal do not sit as triers of fact to weigh evidence and determine credibility." DiSabatino Bros., Inc., v. Wortman, Del. Super,. 453 A.2d 102, 105-106 (1982); and Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., Del. Supr., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (1965). Given this duty to adhere to the UIAB's factual findings and judgments of credibility, Ms. Zaki's testimony constitutes substantial evidence.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the decision rendered by the UIAB is supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal error. It must therefore be affirmed.