Claimant worked as an operational supervisor for Employer Aqua Pro, Inc. until May 15, 2023, when he was terminated for misconduct. Employer alleged that Claimant had concerns being available to management and other employees as required, had disappeared from a job site, removed the GPS tracker from his work vehicle, used his company vehicle for personal use, and totaled his company vehicle (and late reported the incident).
As a result of his termination, Claimant filed for Delaware Unemployment Insurance benefits and was disqualified.
Upon disqualification, Claimant filed an appeal to have a hearing before an Appeals Referee. A hearing was held, but the Employer did not appear. Since it was Claimant’s appeal, the hearing proceeded, and the Appeals Referee ruled in favor of the Claimant and qualified him for benefits.
Employer then appealed the decision of the Appeals Referee. Since the record was incomplete due to the Employer’s absence at the first hearing, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board remanded the case back down an Appeals Referee to complete the evidentiary record.
A second hearing was held before an Appeals Referee with both parties in attendance, and as a result, the Appeals Referee issued a decision that disqualified Claimant from receipt of benefits.
Claimant appealed to the Board, which commenced a hearing and heard new evidence. The Board affirmed the Appeals Referee’s decision to disqualify Claimant.
Claimant then exercised his right to file an appeal to the Superior Court of Delaware.
The Superior Court generally reviews Board decisions on two grounds. The first is whether the decision based on substantial evidence. The second is whether the decision is free from legal error.
Claimant made no argument on appeal that the Board committed legal error. Instead, Claimant’s argument was that the board relied on “‘fraudulent information provided by [Aqua Pro][sic], fabricated after [he][sic] was terminated.’” As such, Claimant’s argument on appeal was based on the evidence relied on by the Board.
The Court, citing a 1994 Delaware Superior Court case Robbins v. Deaton commented that the Unemployment Insurance statute gives the Board “substantial latitude” in what it can consider as evidence such that the evidentiary record is not limited to evidence submitted at the Appeals Board level.
The Superior Court ultimately held that the evidence supporting Claimant’s termination for just case was supported by substantial evidence by the Employer showing that Claimant was “warned that his performance was suboptimal” and did not improve his performance. Moreover, Claimant “engaged in conduct directly opposed to his employer’s interests” (e.g. removing the GPS unit from his work vehicle).
If you have any questions concerning this case or the Delaware Unemployment Insurance claim procedure, please contact an attorney in our liability department.
William Foreman v. Aqua Pro, Inc. and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; C.A. No. K24A-07-001- JJC (Del. Super. December 5, 2024).
|