Opinion
C.A. No. 08A-04-006 JAP.
Submitted: July 7, 2009.
Decided: July 15, 2009.
On Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board AFFIRMED.
Antoine N. Staton, Bear, Delaware.
Dear Mr. Staton,
Before the Court is Mr. Staton's appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the "Board"), in which the Board held that Mr. Staton was disqualified from the receipt of unemployment benefits. Because the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mr. Staton worked as a cook at Bertucci's restaurant for approximately four years. On November 20, 2007, Mr. Staton had a domestic dispute with his wife, which resulted in the police taking him into custody. At the time of the domestic dispute incident, Mr. Staton was on probation for other charges. He was released on bail approximately four days after his arrest. The following day, however, Mr. Staton was arrested for violating the conditions of his probation. Mr. Staton had a hearing on his violation of probation on December 11, 2007, at which time the court released him from custody and sentenced him to further probation. Mr. Staton attempted to return to work after his release, but the restaurant had already hired someone to replace him.
Mr. Staton subsequently filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Division of Unemployment Insurance. The Board held that Mr. Staton "did not meet his burden of persuasion that he voluntarily terminated his employment for good cause, and is, therefore, disqualified from the receipt of benefits." Mr. Staton filed a pro se appeal of the Board's decision to this Court. Bertucci's did not participate in the proceedings before the Board, nor has it filed a response to the appeal before this Court.
Staton v. Bertucci's Restaurant, UIAB Appeal Docket No. 20042104 (Apr. 21, 2008).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
III. DISCUSSION
Ingram v. Barrett's Business Service, Inc., 794 A.2d 1160 (Del. 2007).
Reeves v. Conmac Security, 2006 WL 496136, at *3 (Del.Super.).
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Division of Unemployment Ins., 803 A.2d 931, 937 (Del. 2002).
19 Del. C. § 3314(1) states that "[a]n individual shall be disqualified from benefits: (1) For the week in which the individual left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work and for each week thereafter until the individual has been employed in each of 4 subsequent weeks (whether or not consecutive) and has earned wages in covered employment equal to not less than 4 times the weekly benefit amount.
Smith v. Placers, Inc., 1993 WL 603375, at *2 (Del.Super.).
Id.
Shaw-Malachi v. City of Wilmington/Finance, 2006 WL 1875519, at *3 (Del.Super.).
There was sufficient evidence in this case from which the Board could find that Mr. Staton did not meet his burden of demonstrating good cause for leaving his job. It is clear from the record that Mr. Staton left work at Bertucci's because he was incarcerated. As the Board noted:
While people may not choose to go to jail voluntarily, they make choices in their course of conduct that result in jail; and those behaviors are not related to or the fault of their employment. They are, rather, choices of behavior for which they are held responsible and for which the State will not provide a subsidy in the form of unemployment compensation.
Staton, No. 20042104, at 2.
Furthermore, this Court has stated that "the legislature did not intend that an individual should be eligible for unemployment compensation while incarcerated." Under these circumstances, Mr. Staton has not demonstrated good cause and is therefore not entitled to unemployment benefits.
Mason v. Best Drywall, 1999 WL 459303, at *3 (Del.Super.) ("To require that employers keep a job open for those employees who become incarcerated or risk having to pay unemployment benefits is unreasonable and against the public policy of this State.").
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.