Opinion
C.A. No. 09A-01-011 JRJ.
Submitted: May 12, 2009.
Decided: August 11, 2009.
Upon Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board:
AFFIRMED.Adrian Stewart, pro se, 827 Bennett Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Appellant.
Best Western Hotel, unrepresented, 1807 Concord Pike, Wilmington, DE 19803, Appellee.
Daniel Logan, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, 820 North French Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, Attorney for Appellee, Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
Adrian Stewart ("Stewart") appeals the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("the Board") denying his request for unemployment benefits. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Board's decision denying Stewart's unemployment benefits is free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Board's decision is AFFIRMED.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Stewart was employed by Best Western Hotel ("Best Western") at various times since 2003. Most recently, Stewart was employed as a driver for Best Western from August 4, 2007 through August 6, 2008. Stewart worked full-time and earned $10.25 per hour. He was scheduled to work from 3:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.At the time Stewart was hired, he had his own personal transportation to work. However, Stewart eventually was required to take the bus to work. As a result of this change, Stewart requested a 2:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. shift to coincide with the bus schedule. Mary Taylor ("Taylor"), Best Western's General Manager, denied this request and explained to Stewart that he was not permitted to make his own hours.
Id. at 27.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 3.
Taylor testified that there was an ongoing problem with Stewart leaving work early. During the last week in July 2008, Stewart left early due to transportation issues. Stewart's supervisor, Douglas Hooper ("Hooper"), issued a written warning to Stewart on August 4, 2008, which explained that Stewart was not permitted to "punch out early." Furthermore, Hooper advised Stewart that if he did not change his behavior, he would be terminated. Stewart signed an acknowledgment of this written warning. Stewart left work early again on August 6, 2008. As a result, Stewart was terminated.
Referee Hr'g Tr. at 4.
Record at 27.
Referee Hr'g Tr. at 4.
Record at 4.
Id.
Referee Hr'g Tr. at 4.
Record at 51.
Stewart filed for unemployment benefits on August 10, 2008. At the time of filing, Stewart listed the reason for separation as a "termination." However, Best Western submitted information to the Delaware Department of Labor indicating that Stewart was "frustrated with working and scheduling issues and walked off the job." The Delaware Department of Labor concluded that Stewart was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(2).
Id. at 22.
Id.
Id.
Record at 22. 19 Del. C. § 3314(2) explains that if an employer had "just cause" to terminate an employee, the employee is consequently disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
Stewart appealed the Department of Labor's denial of his benefits to an Appeals Referee on September 10, 2008. The Appeals Referee affirmed the decision of the Department of Labor on October 20, 2008, concluding that Stewart was discharged from his work for just cause.
Record at 26.
Id. at 28.
Stewart appealed the Referee's decision to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on October 22, 2008. The Board affirmed the decision of the Referee on December 3, 2008, and determined that Stewart was discharged for just cause because he "chose to walk off his shift after having been told that such behavior would lead to termination." Stewart filed the instant appeal on March 23, 2009.
Id. at 82.
Id. at 86.
Stewart's Opening Brief ("Opening Brief") at 1, D.I. 6.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a decision on appeal from the Board, this Court must determine if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. Substantial evidence has been defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." The Court does not "weigh the evidence, determine questions of creditability, or make its own factual findings."On appeal, this court is limited to an evaluation of the record that was before the Board. When the Board adopts the factual findings of an Appeals Referee, this Court will also review the Appeals Referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. If the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence, this Court "must affirm the ruling unless it identifies an abuse of discretion or a clear error of law." Questions of law are reviewed de novo to determine "whether the Board erred in formulating or applying legal precepts."
Majaya v. Sojourner's Place, 2003 WL 21350542, at *4 (Del. Super. June 6, 2003).
Id.
Bolden v. Kraft Foods, 2005 WL 3526324, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 21, 2005) (citing Digiacomo v. Bd. of Public Educ., 507 A.2d 542, 546 (Del. 1994)).
Johnson, 213 A.2d at 66.
IV. ANALYSIS
There is substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Best Western terminated Stewart for just cause. Under Delaware law, an employee is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits when "the individual was discharged from the individual's work for just cause in connection with the individual's work." An employer bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing that an employee was discharged for just cause."Just cause" is defined as a "willful 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." An employee's conduct will be considered willful or wanton when he is "conscious of his conduct or recklessly indifferent of its consequences." Generally, an employee's poor attendance will serve as the basis for a just cause termination.
Majaya, 2003 WL 21350542, at *4.
Filanowski v. Port Contractors, Inc., 2007 WL 64758, at *3 (Del. Super. Jan. 2, 2007) (citation omitted).
Ortiz v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 317 A.2d 100, 101 (Del. 1974).
On appeal, Stewart argues that he was not terminated for just cause because his poor attendance at work was due to family emergencies, severe medical problems, and work-related injuries. He also claims that he was not given adequate warning of his termination because he was only warned for calling off from work and not for walking away from his shift.
Record at 110.
Id.
Best Western relied on Stewart to perform his duties as a driver in the course of operating its business. Stewart's repeated failure to remain at work for his entire shift directly contradicted Best Western's instructions. Furthermore, Stewart was given notice that his job was in jeopardy on several occasions. In Hooper's August 4, 2008 letter, Stewart was explicitly warned that he was not permitted to deviate from his expected hours. Stewart was advised that if he did not adhere to his scheduled shift hours, he would be terminated.
See Record at 4.
Id.
Stewart's actions in leaving work early without permission were willful because he did so voluntarily, intentionally, and deliberately. Stewart's actions were also not in the best interest of his employer because Best Western needed an insured driver to take guests back and forth to restaurants, shopping, and work. Best Western had just cause for terminating Stewart because he voluntarily left work contrary to his employer's explicit instructions. This Court finds that Best Western has met its burden of proof that Stewart was terminated for just cause and he is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
Referee H'rg. Tr. at 4.
V. CONCLUSION
Because the Court finds that the Board's decision to deny Stewart unemployment benefits is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error, the Board's decision is AFFIRMED.IT IS SO ORDERED.
cc: Prothonotary (original)