Opinion
C.A. No. 00A-10-010-RSG
Submitted: April 13, 2001
Decided: August 31, 2001
Decision Below Affirmed
Melvin Williams, Pro Se, Wilmington, Delaware, for the Claimant/Appellant, Melvin Williams.
Robert H. Richter, Esq., Heckler Frabizzia, Wilmington, Delaware, for the Employer/Appellee, Sheraton Suites.
OPINION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
The Superior Court must ensure that government agencies, such as the Unemployment Compensation Appeals Agency ("Agency") follow the statutes that provide their authority. All Agency processes, findings, determinations, and decisions (collectively "Agency Actions") are also governed by the principles of due process found in the United States and Delaware Constitutions.
I. Score and Standard of Review A. Standard of Review
The role of this Court in reviewing an Agency Action is limited to determining whether the Agency Action is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error. In the absence of an error of law, the Court will affirm an Agency Action which is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance. In reviewing the record for substantial evidence, the Court will consider the record in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. An individual shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits "for the week in which he left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work. . . ." Claimant possesses:
Smith v. The Placers, Inc., Del. Super., 1993 Lexis 483, 4 (citing 19 Del. C. § 3323(a) (1985); Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. of Dep't. of Labor v. Duncan, Del. Supr., 337 A.2d 308, 309 (1975); Ridings v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Super., 407 A.2d 238, 239 (1979); Longobardi v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Super., 287 A.2d 690, 692 (1971), aff'd, Del. Supr., 293 A.2d 295 (1972)).
Longobardi at 692.
Smith at 4-5 (citing Olney v. Cooch, Del. Supr., 425 A.2d 610, 614 (1981); Plants v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del. Super., C.A. No. 86A-OC-1, Martin, J. (Oct. 22, 1987)).
Id. at 5 (citing GMC v. Guy, Del. Super., C.A. No. 90A-JL-5, Gebelein, J. (Aug. 16, 1991)).
19 Del. C. § 3315(1) (1992).
the burden of showing that Claimant is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. Good cause must be such cause as would justify one in voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed.
Id. (citing O'Neal's Bus Service, Inc. v. Employment Sec. Comm'n., Del. Super., 269 A.2d 247, 249 (1970)).
Further, a "voluntary resignation must be for reasons connected with the employment, not for personal reasons." Good cause related to such work "contemplates such things as a substantial reduction in wages or hours or a substantial deviation in the working conditions from the original agreement of hire." B. Pro Se Claimants
Id. (citing Brainard v. Unemployment Comp. Comm'n., Del. Super., 76 A.2d 126, 128 (1950)).
Id. at 7 (citing Short v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. and Phoenix Steel Corp., Del. Super., C.A. No. 84A-JL-13, Gebelein, J. (July 26, 1985) (emphasis added)).
Claimant is a pro se claimant; the Court may reasonably interpret a pro se Claimant's filings, pleadings, and appeals in a favorable light to alleviate the technical inaccuracies typical in many pro se legal argument. While procedural requirements are not relaxed for any type of litigant (barring extraordinary circumstances or to prevent substantial injustice), the Court may grant pro se claimants accommodations that do not affect the substantive rights of those parties involved in a case at bar.
II. Evidence Supporting Decision
In this case, the claimant acknowledged in his statement of facts that he quit because of a change in working conditions. The decision of the appeals reference clearly sets forth the reason for denial of benefits. That decision was affirmed by the Board after a full hearing. There is substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant quit without good cause. There was a change in working conditions that he did not like. He brought that to managements attention and quit the next day. It cannot be said that he exhausted his administrative remedies before leaving.
The decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.