Opinion
C.A. No. 99A-09-009 RRC.
Submitted: March 14, 2000.
Decided: June 23, 2000.
Upon Appeal From a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. AFFIRMED.
This 23rd day of June, 2000, upon consideration of Employee's pro se appeal of an August 25, 1999 decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (Board) denying Employee unemployment insurance benefits, it appears to this Court that:
1. Judy A. McDonald (Employee) was employed by Christiana Care Health Services (Employer) from December 1996 until June 11, 1999. From March 1, 1998 until May 27, 1999, when she resigned, Employee held the position of Clerk V in Radiation Safety. This dispute is based on the circumstances causing the Employee's resignation.
2. Employee submitted a letter of resignation on May 27, 1999 to be effective June 15, 1999 "unless someone here at [Employer] cares enough to look deeply into the problem." Employee had testified at the Appeals Referee hearing that her supervisor, Edward Torvik, MID (Torvik) had continually addressed Employee as "my chubby friend" and "my little Polish fat girl," and had repeatedly called her an "imbecile." Employee testified that she had met with Jill Schwab (Schwab) at Human Resources on May 28, 1999 and with her other supervisor, Patricia Falkowski (Falkowski), in November of the same year and infonned them of Torvik's behavior. During this time, Employee had been receiving poor performance evaluations from Torvik, her supervisor.
Employee's May 27, 1999 Letter of Resignation.
Appeals Referee Decision at 2.
Id.
Id.
At the Appeals Referee hearing, Schwab indicated that after speaking with Falkowski, it became apparent that Employee had not reported Torvik's behavior to Falkowski. On June 2, 1999, a meeting was called to address this issue and Employee then admitted that she had not reported the comments to Falkowski at all. Employee's work performance was reviewed and it was determined that there had been problems based on an incompatibility of Employee's computer system with that of Torvik. The problem was then reported and corrected. At that time, Employee had been asked to keep a record of her work and was then given an opportunity to rescind her resignation with a caveat that her work performance be reviewed. Employee chose not to rescind her resignation.
On July 29, 1999 the Appeals Referee found that Employee had resigned from her job for good cause and ruled that she was entitled to receive unemployment benefits. Employer appealed the decision of the Appeals Referee to the Board. The Board held a hearing On August 25, 1999 and accepted the evidence presented to the Appeals Referee and took further testimony from Employee and Schwab. In its decision, the Board found that
"[Employee] failed to give the employer an opportunity to correct any problems. The Referee concluded that efforts by the employer to alter the supervisor's allegedly harassing conduct would be ineffective. The law is clear that the [employee] must give the employer notice of her reason for dissatisfaction with her employment and an opportunity to remedy the situation."
Bd. Dec. at 2.
The Board then reversed the decision of the Appeals Referee and found that Employee had "voluntarily quit her work without good cause in connection with her work. She is disqualified from the receipt of unemployment benefits. . . ." Employee has subsequently appealed the decision of the Board.
Id.
3. Employee appeals the decision of the Board stating facts consistent with those presented to the Appeals Referee. In addition to the allegations of verbal abuse by Torvik, Employee asks this Court to award her back pay, a chance to regain her position at Christiana Care in a different department or alternatively a letter of recommendation, and $25,000 for Torvik's harassment.
4. Employer contends that the Board's determination was free from legal error and based upon substantial evidence in the record. Specifically, Employee argues that the Employee "had an obligation to give [Employer] an opportumty to resolve her conflict with Torvik before resigning" and that Employee failed to give Employer that opportunity.
Employer's Answering Brief at 7.
5. The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the limited appellate review of factual findings of an administrative agency. The function of the reviewing Court is to determine whether substantial evidence supports the agency's decision. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This Court, on appeal, does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings. This Court's duty is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Board's findings of fact and whether errors of law exist. As the Court performs this duty, it views the facts in a light most favorable to the prevailing party below. Only where there is no satisfactory proof in support of the factual findings of the Board may Superior Court overturn it.
Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., Del. Supr., 213 A.2d 64, 66-67 (1965); General Motors v. Freeman, Del. Supr., 164 A.2d 686, 688 (1960).
Oceanport Ind v. Wilmington Stevedores, Del. Supr., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (1994); Battista v. Chrysler Corp., Del. Super., 517 A.2d 295, 297 (1986), appeal dismissed, Del. Supr. 515 A.2d 397 (1986).
Johnson at 66.
9 Del. C., § 3323(a).
See Chudnofsky v. Edwards, Del. Supr., 208 A.2d 516, 518 (1965).
Johnson at 66.
6. The law is clear that an employee must give an employer notice of her reason for dissatisfaction with the employment situation and the employer an opportunity to remedy the situation. The Board adopted the evidence presented to the Appeals Referee and heard additional testimony from Schwab and Employee. The Board accepted the testimony of Falkowski that she was never informed of the alleged verbal abuse. This Court finds that the decision of the Board is based on substantial evidence in the record and is free from legal error.
O'Neal's Bus Service, Inc. v. Employment Securities Commission, Del. Supr., 269 A.2d 247 (1970).
For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.