Opinion
C.A. No. N09A-12-003 DCS.
Submitted: July 6, 2010.
Decided: November 16, 2010.
On Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. AFFIRMED.
Michael W. Modica, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellant, Marcia T. Smith.
Phillip G. Johnson, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
ORDER
This 16th day of November, 2010, upon consideration of Appellant's appeal from a decision on the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("the Board"), it appears to the Court that:
1. Appellee, American Driving and Training (the "Company"), hired Appellant, Marcia Smith, in early 2007 to handle billing the Company's customers and paying the Company's bills. On May 23, 2007, Appellant married Company President Michael McKinley. Appellant was terminated from her position at the Company on March 11, 2009 for making unauthorized transfers from a company bank account.
Record at 52, 56. Company President Michael McKinley estimated that Appellant's employment began in either February or March of 2007.
Record at 63.
Record at 6.
2. On March 30, 2009, Appellant filed a claim for unemployment benefits. A hearing was held on May 11, 2009, and on May 15 2009, the Referee issued a decision in favor of the Company. The Referee found that Appellant was terminated for "just cause" based on testimony by Michael McKinley that Appellant was terminated for making 19 unauthorized transfers of from his business account to his personal account.
Record at 7.
Record at 11-13.
Record at 13.
3. On May 20, 2009, Appellant filed an appeal with the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("the Board"). The Board held a hearing on July 8, 2009, and on November 17, 2009 the Appeals Referee affirmed the Referee's decision, finding that, on the basis of Mr. McKinley's testimony and notarized applications for restitution, Appellant "made unauthorized or improperly documented transfers from the employing unit's accounts," and, in doing so, "violated the Employer's interests and a reasonably expected standard of workplace conduct."
Record at 69.
Record at 80. Deputy Attorney General Philip G. Johnson entered his appearance on behalf of the Unemployment Insurance Board, but was not required to file a response brief, and submitted a letter to the Court on July 12, 2010 indicating that the Board did not intend to file such response. To date, no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of American Driving and Training.
3. On December 7, 2009, Appellant filed her appeal with this Court. Appellant contends that "the Referee and Board erred by disregarding the spousal relationship, and that [Appellant's] conduct related to her role of wife, not as an employee." Appellant further argues that because "neither the Referee, or the Appeals Board, found that [Appellant] converted the transferred funds to her personal use," it cannot be established that Appellant misappropriated Company funds, since the transferred money directly benefited Michael McKinley, the Company's owner and president.
Record at 116.
Op. Br. at 8.
Op. Br. at 6.
4. The Superior Court's review of Board decisions is "limited to a determination of whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error." "When reviewing a decision on appeal from an agency, the Superior Court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings."
Broadnax v. West End Neighborhood House, 2010 WL 740523, at *2 (Del. Super. March 2, 2010) (citing Starkey v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 340 A.2d 165, 166 (Del. Super. 1975)).
Broadnax, at *2 (citing Holowka v. New Castle County Bd. of Adjustment, 2003 WL 21001026, at *3 (Del. Super. April 15, 2003)).
In determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the Board's decision, this Court must view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. "Even if this Court might have reached a different conclusion than the Board in the first instance, a decision of the Board must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error."
Bromwell v. Chrysler LLC, 2001 WL 4513086, at *3 (Del. Super. Oct. 28, 2010) (citing E.I. DuPont De Nemours Co. v. Faupel, 859 A.2d 1042, 1046-47 (Del. Super. 2004)).
Bromwell, at *2 (citing Brogan v. Value City Furniture, 2002 WL 499721, at *2 (Del. Super. March 27, 2002)).
5. Looking at the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below, this Court holds that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision that appellant was terminated for "just cause." The Board had evidence that Appellant made payments to entities to which the Appellee was not a debtor and without the Company's knowledge. The Board, in its capacity as the finder of fact, relied on Michael McKinley's notarized applications for restitution and his testimony that Appellant took $67,000 in excess of her salary from the Company. The Board ultimately accepted Michael McKinley's testimony as credible and determined that Appellant had, at the very least, improperly documented transfers from the Company's accounts, thereby violating the Company's interests and expected standard of workplace conduct.
Record at 26-48, 97.
Record at 108.
Record at 80.
7. Therefore, the Court finds the Board's decision to be free of legal error and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.