White v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
JALISA WHITE )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N23A-08-004 PAW
)
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )
APPEAL BOARD )
)
Appellee. )
Submitted: February 2, 2024
Decided: May 8, 2024
Upon Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board;
AFFIRMED.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jalisa White, Self-Represented Appellant.
Matthew B. Frawley, Esq., of the Delaware Department of Justice, Attorney for
Appellee.
WINSTON, J.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal stems from an Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s (the
“Board”) decision declining to accept Jalisa White’s appeal and affirming the
Appeals Referee’s (the “Referee”) decision that her appeal of the Claim Deputy’s
Determination was untimely. For reasons set forth below, the Board’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
White filed for unemployment benefits with the Department of Labor after
being terminated from her employer, Positive Change Academy.1 According to her
benefits application, White was terminated because she received a verbal warning
for lateness and leaving early.2 On April 3, 2023, a Claims Deputy mailed a notice
of determination (the “Determination”) denying White’s claim for unemployment
benefits because the Department of Labor found her discharged with just cause.3
The Determination identified the employer as Positive Directions instead of Positive
Change Academy.4 The Determination also specified that it becomes final on April
13, 2023, unless a written appeal is filed.5 On April 14, 2023, White emailed the
1
R. at 7.
2
Id.
3
R. at 68. It is undisputed that White received the Determination.
4
Id.
5
Id.
2
Department of Labor “resending [her] appeal [because she had not] heard anything
since [she] spoke with [a Department of Labor representative]….”6 White asserted
the Department of Labor erroneously utilized the incorrect employer when deciding
her claim.7 On April 20, 2023, the same Claims Deputy mailed an additional notice
of determination (the “Second Determination”) to White.8 The Second
Determination found the Determination disqualified White from receiving benefits
and noted White filed her written appeal on April 14, 2023, one day after the
Determination became final and binding.9 The Second Determination also advised
that a hearing to address only the timeliness of White’s appeal would be scheduled.10
Subsequently, on May 25, 2023, the Department of Labor noticed White’s timeliness
appeal hearing for June 6, 2023 with the Referee.11
At the hearing, the Referee confirmed White’s mailing address.12 White
further testified she received the Determination and was aware of the April 13 appeal
deadline.13 When asked by the Referee whether she submitted anything in writing
prior to the deadline, White stated she appealed in-person on April 11, 2023.14
6
R. at 69. There is no attachment to White’s email.
7
Id.
8
R. at 63. It is undisputed that White received the Second Determination.
9
R. at 66.
10
Id.
11
R. at 62.
12
R. at 21:14-19.
13
R. at 25:5, 29:4-8, and 31:13-14.
14
R. at 31:21-23 and 33:22-34:5.
3
White, however, could not find a copy of her in-person appeal and attested she was
unaware the hearing related to timeliness only.15 Consequently, the Referee gave
White until the end of the day to provide proof of her in-person appeal,16 but no
evidence was submitted. The Referee then affirmed the Determination finding
White’s appeal untimely.17
White next appealed to the Board. The Board found no evidence that the
Department of Labor used the incorrect address when it mailed the Determination
creating a rebuttable presumption that White received the Determination.18 In
addition, the Board concluded that White’s appeal failed to provide any evidence of
severe circumstances preventing her from appealing the Determination before the
statutory deadline.19 Therefore, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to
accept White’s appeal and affirmed the Referee’s decision.20 In turn, White filed the
instant appeal to this Court.21
15
R. at 35:18-21 and 37:21-23. The Referee clarified the hearing was originally
scheduled for a discharge appeal hearing instead of one solely addressing timeliness.
R. at 36:20-37:10. This mistake was cured when the Department of Labor issued
the May 25, 2023, hearing notice which indicated the “only testimony at [the]
hearing will be the issue of the claimant’s timeliness of appeal.” R. at 62.
16
R. at 46:20-47:6.
17
R. at 15-17.
18
R. at 9.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
R. at 5.
4
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court’s review of decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board is limited to a determination of whether there was substantial evidence to
support the findings of the Board.22 Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.23 The
Court will not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its
own factual findings.24 If the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence
and is free from legal error, then the Board’s decision will be affirmed.25
A discretionary decision of the Board will be upheld absent an abuse of
discretion.26 An abuse of discretion occurs when the Board “acts arbitrarily or
capriciously” or “exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances and has
ignored recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice.”27 The Court
reviews questions of law de novo to determine “whether the Board erred in
formulating or applying legal precepts.”28
22
City of Newark v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 802 A.2d 318, 323 (Del. Super.
2002).
23
Walker v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2015 WL 1542034, at *1 (Del. Super.
Mar. 12, 2015).
24
Id.25
Id.26
Straley v. Advanced Staffing, Inc., 2009 WL 1228572, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 30,
2009), aff'd sub nom. Straley v. Advance Staffing, Inc., 984 A.2d 124 (Del. 2009).
27
Id.28
Id.5
IV. ANALYSIS
The Appeal is Untimely, and the Board Did Not Abuse its Discretion in
Declining to Hear the Untimely Appeal
On appeal, White concedes she untimely appealed the Determination, but
argues the merits of the underlying Determination.29 In opposition, the Board
contends it did not abuse its discretion in denying White’s appeal request because
White failed to comply with the statutory deadline and the Department of Labor
committed no errors preventing her from filing a timely appeal.30 The Determination
specified the decision would become final unless appealed by April 13, 2023. White
did not appeal until April 14, 2023, after the appeal deadline passed. White concedes
her appeal was untimely.
Therefore, the sole issue before the Court is whether the Board abused its
discretion in declining to hear White’s untimely appeal. The Board did not. The
Board declined to accept White’s appeal because the Determination was properly
sent to White and White untimely appealed. Generally, the Board only exercises its
discretion to hear an untimely appeal where “administrative error on the part of the
Department of Labor deprived the claimant of the opportunity to file a timely appeal,
or in those cases where the interests of justice would not be served by inaction.”31
29
Op. Br. at 1.
30
Ans. Br. at 3-4. Although afforded an opportunity to reply to the Board’s
opposition, White failed to submit a reply in support of her appeal. D.I. 15 and 16.
31
Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991).
6
The Board found no evidence either. The Court agrees and finds that the Board did
not abuse its discretion by refusing to hear White’s appeal despite its untimeliness.
V. CONCLUSION
This Court’s review of the Board’s decision is limited. The Board declined to
hear White’s appeal on the grounds that the Determination was properly addressed
to White, no evidence of administrative error existed, and White presented no
evidence of severe circumstances preventing her from filing an appeal before the
statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Board’s decision declining to hear White’s
appeal is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Patricia A. Winston
Patricia A. Winston, Judge
7