Opinion
C.A. No. 02A-05-002
Date Submitted: September 18, 2002
Date Decided: November 26, 2002
Dale R. Dub, Esquire Ms. Estella MacKey Blank Rome Comisky McCauley LLP
Brooke T. Iley, Esquire Blank Rome Comisky McCauley LLP
Dear Counsel and Ms. MacKey:
This is my decision on the appeal by Estella MacKey ("Claimant") of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board's (the "Board") decision denying her unemployment benefits. The Board found that Claimant's employer, Green Valley Terrace ("Employer"), terminated her for just cause, rendering her ineligible for unemployment benefits. I affirm the Board's decision for the reasons stated herein.
NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
Claimant filed for unemployment benefits on March 10, 2002. A Claims Deputy denied Claimant unemployment benefits under 19 Del. C. § 3315(2), after determining Employer terminated Claimant for just cause. Claimant, who did not agree with the Claims Deputy's finding, appealed the decision on April 1, 2002. An Appeals Referee held a hearing on April 22, 2002, and affirmed the Claim Deputy's decision. Claimant appealed this adverse ruling on April 30, 2002, alleging she should be granted unemployment benefits because she did not cause the incident at issue. The Board reviewed Claimant's appeal on May 15, 2002, affirming the Referee's decision and declining to hear further testimony on the matter. Thereupon, Claimant filed a Notice of Appeal with this Court on May 30, 2002. Claimant listed three grounds for appeal, apparently alleging the Board erred in finding there was just cause for Claimant's termination. The Employer contends the Board's decision should be upheld. First, Employer claims the Board's determination that Claimant was not entitled to unemployment benefits was not an abuse of discretion. Second, Employer argues Claimant failed to submit a brief in compliance with the Court's Rules. Thus, Employer asks the Court to dismiss Claimant's appeal.
Claimant argues that a fellow employee's behavior caused the incident. Claimant believes her co-worker should have been reprimanded for his actions.
The incident leading to this appeal occurred on March 2, 2002, while Claimant was an employee in Employer's dietary department. On that day, Claimant brought a banana to eat during her shift. Claimant placed the banana in the kitchen and left the area to perform her work assignments. While Claimant was away from the kitchen, DeMorris Knox ("Knox"), another employee, saw the banana and asked other employees about the banana's ownership. When no one claimed the banana, Knox ate it. Then, the Claimant returned to the kitchen and discovered that Knox had eaten her banana. Knox attempted to rectify the situation by apologizing to Claimant and purchasing another banana. Claimant found Knox's overtures insufficient because the substitute banana was green and Claimant does not eat green bananas. Upset by the loss of her yellow banana, Claimant threw a chef's knife at Knox. The knife did not hit Knox, but Knox reported the incident to Employer's dietary director. Employer has a zero tolerance policy toward violence in the workplace and any violent behavior will result in discharge. Employees are informed of this policy during orientation and in the employee handbook, which is provided to all employees. Employer determined that throwing a knife violated the anti-violence policy and Claimant was terminated for this act.
DISCUSSION A. Should Claimant's Appeal Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Civil Rules Regarding Submission of Briefs?
Claimant's brief to the Court consists of a one page, handwritten letter with the date, case number, a statement that a copy was mailed to Employer, and a statement expressing the basis for appeal. Apparently, Claimant's appeal alleges the Board's decision was erroneous because Knox's actions led Claimant to throw the knife. Claimant believes she was unfairly punished because Knox was not sanctioned for taking her banana.
Employer contends an appeal from the Board under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 72 must include a brief in compliance with Super.Ct.Civ.R. 107. Claimant's brief lacks four elements required by Super.Ct.Civ.R. 107(d): a table of contents, a statement of the case, a statement of the issues, and an argument. Also, Claimant's brief lacks the certificate of service required by Rule 107(e). Claimant's failure to include these elements gives this Court the discretion to dismiss Claimant's appeal. Therefore, Employer argues this Court should dismiss this appeal.
The Court disagrees with Employer's contention that the appeal should be dismissed for Claimant's failure to comply with Super. Ct. Civ. Rule 107. Claimant has proceeded pro se throughout this process. "[T]he Court may exhibit some degree of leniency toward a pro se litigant, in order to see that his case is fully and fairly heard." Jackson v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Super., C.A. No. 85A-NO-9, Bifferato, J. (Sept. 24, 1986), at 3. Claimant's submission is a letter stating a grievance with the Board's finding, not a brief. Apparently, Claimant alleges her discharge was not for just cause because Knox was not fired. In spite of the flaws in Claimant's submission, the Court can extrapolate Claimant's argument. Therefore, the appeal will not be dismissed on this ground. B. Standard of Review
The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the limited appellate review of the factual findings of an administrative agency. The function of the reviewing Court is to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66-67 (Del. 1965); General Motors v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686, 688 (Del. 1960), and to review questions of law de novo, In re Beattie, 180 A.2d 741, 744 (Del.Super. 1962). Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994); Battista v. Chrysler Corp., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (Del.), app. dism., 515 A.2d 397 (Del. 1986). The appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. Johnson v. Chrysler, 213 A.2d at 66. It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency's factual findings. 19 Del. C. § 3323.
C. Did the Board Abuse Its Discretion in Upholding the Denial of Claimant's Unemployment Benefits?
Claimant seeks to have the Board's decision overturned by this Court, an action Employer contests. Employer argues the Board's ruling cannot be reversed because the decision to deny Claimant's unemployment benefits was not an abuse of discretion. According to Employer, there is substantial evidence, including Claimant's own admission that she threw a knife, to support the Board's decision. Furthermore, Employer's policy prohibits workplace violence and sanctions violators with termination. Employer contends knife throwing is a clear breach of the policy and just cause for termination. As Claimant's termination was for just cause, Employer argues Claimant is not eligible for unemployment benefits under 19 Del. C. § 3315(2).
An employee discharged for just cause forfeits his or her unemployment benefits. 19 Del. C. § 3315(2). Just cause includes "a wilful or wanton act or pattern of conduct in violation of the employer's interest, the employee's duties, or the employee's expected standard of conduct." Avon Prod., Inc. v. Wilson, 513 A.2d 1315, 1316 (Del. 1986). "Wilful" implies "actual, specific or evil intent," while wanton denotes "conduct which is heedless, malicious or reckless." Delaware Admin. v. Jones, Del. Super., C.A. No. 94A-04-027, Babiarz, J. (Jan. 23, 1995), at 10. An employer has more difficulty proving the intent required for wilful conduct, than proving an act wanton. Id. Claimant performed a wanton act, as knife throwing is reckless behavior. While a single act generally does not create just cause for a dismissal, Kingswood Cmty. Ctr. v. Chandler, Del. Super., No. C.A. 98A-05-016, Barron, J. (Jan 19, 1999), at 6, this Court has found single acts of a serious nature sufficient to create just cause, Hudson v. English Vill. Apartments, Del. Super., No. C.A. 95A-05-004, Cooch, J. (Nov. 30, 1995), at 6. An act of violence such as occurred here is sufficient to constitute just cause for termination. Thus, the evidence supports the conclusion that Claimant's termination was for just cause. The Board's decision to deny Claimant's unemployment insurance benefits is AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
The single acts constituting just cause cited by Hudson include an instance where an intoxicated employee waived a toy revolver in his co-workers' presence.
Knox's ingestion of the banana and offer of an allegedly green banana are irrelevant to the issue of whether Claimant was terminated for just cause. Claimant was terminated for throwing a knife, a violent outburst in violation of Employer's Policy.