Jones v. Natural Dairy Products Corp.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN JONES, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N17A-04-003 ALR
)
NATURAL DAIRY PRODUCTS )
CORP. )
d/b/a NATURAL BY NATURE )
and )
THE UNEMPLOYMENT )
INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD )
Date Submitted: October 17, 2017
Date Decided: November 1, 2017
On Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
AFFIRMED
This is an appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“Board”).
Upon consideration of the facts, arguments, and legal authority set forth by the
parties; statutory and decisional law; and the entire record in this case, the Court
hereby finds as follows:
1. Appellant John Jones (“Employee”) worked as a warehouse associate
at Natural Dairy Products Corp. d/b/a Natural by Nature (“Employer”) from May 3,
2015 until his termination on September 30, 2016.
2. On September 27, 2015, a temporary driver of Employer took a box out
of Employer’s truck and placed it near the back door of Employer’s facility.
Employee noticed the box when he arrived at work. He looked through the box for
three to four minutes before taking it and placing it in his personal vehicle. The box
contained some cleaning chemicals, tools, wires, documents, and a bag of change.
There were also some bugs in the box.
3. On September 30, 2016, Employer’s regular driver notified Employer
that his box was missing from the Employer’s truck. Employer reviewed the
surveillance video and observed Employee take the box and place it in his personal
vehicle. Employee had not reported to Employer that he found a box and did not
take any other affirmative steps to find the rightful owner of the box.
4. On October 3, 2016, Employer confronted Employee about the missing
box. Employer showed Employee the surveillance video and conducted an exit
interview. At no time did Employee attempt to explain why he had taken the box.
5. Employer terminated Employee for theft, which is a violation of
Employer’s policies.
6. Employee filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Division of
Unemployment. By decision dated October 18, 2016, a Claims Deputy found that
Employee was terminated for just cause and disqualified from receiving benefits
pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(2) (“Section 3314(2)”).
7. On October 21, 2016, Employee appealed the Claims Deputy’s
decision to an Appeals Referee. On November 18, 2016, following a de novo
2
hearing, the Appeals Referee affirmed the Claims Deputy’s decision disqualifying
Employee from benefits pursuant to Section 3314(2).
8. On November 22, 2016, Employee filed an appeal from the Appeals
Referee’s decision to the Board. On December 14, 2016, the Board remanded the
matter to the Appeals Referee for a further evidentiary hearing.
9. On January 17, 2017, the Appeals Referee held a second de novo
hearing. By decision dated January 18, 2017, the Appeals Referee again affirmed
the Claims Deputy’s decision disqualifying Employee from benefits pursuant to
Section 3314(2).
10. The Appeals Referee concluded that there was just cause for
termination based on its finding that Employee committed theft when he took the
box and failed to notify anyone about the box or explain his actions when confronted
with the surveillance video.
11. On January 23, 2017, Employee filed an appeal from the Appeals
Referee’s decision to the Board. The Board held a hearing on March 1, 2017. By
decision dated March 23, 2017, the Board affirmed the Appeals Referee’s decision
disqualifying Employee from benefits pursuant to Section 3314(2) (“Board
Decision”).
12. Employee appeals the Board Decision to this Court. Employee
contends that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s findings.
3
13. This Court reviews the Board Decision for an abuse of discretion.1
Accordingly, this Court’s review is limited to determining whether the Board’s
findings and conclusions are free from legal error and supported by substantial
evidence on the record.2 Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable
person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.3 If the record contains
substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion, the decision will not be
disturbed.4
14. Delaware’s unemployment statute provides for “the compulsory setting
aside of an unemployment reserve to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed
through no fault of their own.”5 [T]he Unemployment Compensation Act is usually
given a liberal construction favoring a claimant, at least when its basic policy is in
issue.”6 An employee who is discharged for “just cause” is disqualified from
receiving unemployment benefits.7 “Just cause” is “a willful or wanton act or pattern
of conduct in violation of the employer’s interest, the employee’s duties, or the
1
Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991).
2
PAL of Wilmington v. Graham, 2008 WL 2582986, at *3 (Del. Super. June 18,
2008).
3
Histed v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del. 1993).
4
See Funk, 591 A.2d at 225; Williams v. Brandywine Counseling, 2016 WL
3660570, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 27, 2016).
5
19 Del. C. § 3301.
6
Williams, 2016 WL 3660570, at *2 (quoting Delaware Auth. For Reg’l Transit v.
Buehlman, 409 A.2d 1045, 1046 (Del. 1979)).
7
19 Del. C. § 3314(2).
4
employee’s expected standard of conduct.”8 In the context of unemployment
benefits, the Court has held that “‘wilful’ [sic] implies actual, specific, or evil intent,
while ‘wanton’ implies needless, malicious or reckless conduct, but does not require
actual intent to cause harm.”9 An employer bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that an employee was terminated for just cause.10
15. A single incident of misconduct can be enough to establish just cause
for termination.11 For example, a single instance of insubordination, violence, or
theft can be sufficient to establish just cause.12
16. The Board concluded that there was just cause for Employee’s
termination based on its finding that Employee committed theft. Substantial
evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Employee committed theft, including
8
Dep’t of Corr. v. Toomey, 1997 WL 537294, at *2 (Del. Aug. 20, 1997) (quoting
Avon Prods., Inc. v. Wilson, 513 A.2d 1315, 1317 (Del. 1986)).
9
Jackson v. Christian Care, 2008 WL 555918, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 29, 2008)
(internal citations omitted). See also Brown v. First State Fabrication, LLC, 2015
WL 7747127, at *2 (Del. Super. Nov. 17, 2015) (quoting Coleman v. Dep’t of Labor,
288 A.2d 285, 288 (Del. Super. 1972)) (“A willful or wanton act requires the
employee to be ‘conscious of his conduct or recklessly indifferent to its
consequences.’”); McCaffrey v. City of Wilmington, 2014 WL 6679176, at *8 (Del.
Super. Nov. 3, 2014) (citing Morris v. Blake, 552 A.2d 844, 847 (Del. Super. 1988))
(holding that wantonness is demonstrated by a conscious indifference that evidences
an ‘I-don’t-care’ attitude).
10
Murphy & Landon, P.A v. Pernic, 121 A.3d 1215, 1222 (Del. 2015) (citing
Edmonds v. Kelly Servs., 2012 WL 4033377, at *2 (Del. Sept. 12, 2012)).
11
See Mack v. RSC Landscaping, 2011 WL 7078291, at *2 (Del. Super. Dec. 22,
2011) (citing Peninsula United Methodist Homes v. Crookshank, 2000 WL
33114324 (Del. Super. Sep. 28, 2000)).
12
Id.
5
the surveillance video of Employee taking the box and Employer’s testimony that
Employee never notified anyone that he had the box and failed to explain himself
when confronted with the surveillance video.
17. In addition, the Board decision is free from legal error. The Board
properly considered only that evidence presented at the Board hearing itself and the
second hearing before the Appeals Referee in the Board Decision.13
18. The Board Decision is supported by substantial evidence, and is free
from legal error, and must be affirmed.
NOW, THEREFORE, this 1st day of November, 2017, the March 23, 2017
decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
____________________________
The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
13
The Court notes that the Board asked some questions at the Board hearing relating
to evidence that was only presented at the first Appeals Referee hearing. However,
Employee’s counsel informed the Board that the record was limited to that evidence
which was presented at the second de novo hearing before the Appeals Referee.
Therefore, the Board only considered the evidence from the second hearing before
the Appeals Referee in the Board Decision. In addition, the Court is solely
considering the evidence presented at the Board hearing and the second hearing
before the Appeals Referee.
6