Claimant was employed as a human resources director until being terminated his employer on April 28, 2023. Claimant was terminated due to “‘a pattern of unprofessional conduct, insubordination, and poor job performance’” concerning Claimant’s production of required monthly reports.
Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits and was qualified for benefits by a claims deputy. Employer appealed the deputy determination, and at the appeals hearing that followed, Claimant was disqualified from benefits.
Claimant appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and argued that the appeals referee relied on hearsay evidence and that the Employer’s witness made misrepresentations at the lower appeal hearing.
The Board agreed with Claimant as to the existence of hearsay evidence but otherwise found that there were “‘other performance deficits’” identified in non-hearsay correspondence between the Claimant and the Employer’s witness. The deficits rose to the level to meet Employer’s burden for termination for just cause.
Claimant then appealed to the Superior Court of Delaware and argued that the Board based its decision on hearsay, that Employer did not warn him that his job was in danger, and that certain findings of the Board were erroneous.
The Court affirmed the Board’s decision. In doing so, the Court highlighted the Board’s ability to “‘admit and consider hearsay evidence,’” distinguishing however that the Board cannot “‘base its decision solely on hearsay.’” Nevertheless, in Claimant’s case, there was “credible [non-hearsay] evidence to support the Board’s finding of just cause.”
As to Claimant’s argument on his termination notice, the Court maintained that “as a general rule, ‘employees are entitled to some notice that their performance is unacceptable before being discharged.’” Furthermore, “the warning need not explicitly state that termination may result from one’s repeated misconduct.” In this case, Claimant was rendered a final warning.
Claimant argued that there was a four-month period that passed between the warning and his termination which he argued would preclude a finding just cause. The Superior Court referenced Delaware Supreme Court caselaw holding that an employer can rely on prior misconduct in a later termination decision.
Claimant’s argument about the Board’s erroneous findings was dismissed as the findings at issue were deemed non-dispositive by the Court such that such findings do not disrupt the Board’s other findings that were sufficient for a just cause finding.
The Court ultimately held that the board “permissibly found that [the Claimant] willfully disregarded his responsibilities and the expectations set by the employer.”
David I Bull v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and First State Community Action Agency; C.A. No.: K23A-12-002 JJC (Del. Super. Ct. June 24, 2024)
|