See Linscott v. Millers Falls Co., 440 F.2d 14, 18 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 872 (1971). See also Peterson v. Hall, 421 A.2d 1350, 1354 (Del. 1980); Russell v. Catherwood, 33 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. 1969). Cf. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (denying benefits to one who was discharged for refusing to work Saturdays due to religious beliefs could not be based on compelling State interest); Nottleson v. Department of Indus., Labor, Human Relations, 94 Wis.2d 106, 121 (1980) (court held that meritoriousness of excuse for failure to pay agency fee protected employee from discharge).
Finally, Castle Mall Associates raises matters not fairly presented to the Court below which may not be heard for the first time on appeal. Delaware Supreme Court Rule 8. Peterson v. Hall, Del.Supr., 421 A.2d 1350, 1354 (1980); Wilmington Trust Company v. Conner, Del.Supr., 415 A.2d 773, 781 (1980); Robinson v. Meding, Del.Supr., 163 A.2d 272, 277-78 (1960). Therefore, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
This deference is reflected in an appellate court's standard of review that an administrative agency's interpretation of its rules will not be reversed unless "clearly wrong." Peterson v. Hall, Del.Supr., 421 A.2d 1350, 1353 (1980); In the Matter of Spielman, Del.Super., 316 A.2d 226, 229 (1974). But where it appears that the rights created or benefits conferred by an agency's construction of its rules are contrary to their plain meaning, reversal is required.
Id. (citing Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, 585 F.2d 1327 (6th Cir. 1978). Id. (citing Peterson v. Hall, 421 A.2d 1350, 1353 (Del. 1980). Id.
Id. (citing Diebold, Inc. v. Marshall, 585 F.2d 1327 (6th Cir. 1978)). Bums, 438 A.2d at 1229 (citing Peterson v. Hall, 421 A.2d 1350, 1353 (Del. Super. 1980)). Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159, 1161 (Del. 2009).