Husfelt v. Mary Campbell Center, Inc., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STA TE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR THE NEW CASTLE COUNTY ANGELA D. HUSFELT, ) ) Appe llant, ) ) v. ) ) THE MARY CAMPBELL CEN TER, ) and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) APPEAL BOARD, ) ) Appellees. ) C.A. No. 07A-07-005 JRS Date Submitted: March 17, 2008 Date Decided: June 25, 2008 Upon Appeal from the Unemploym ent Insurance Appea l Board. AFFIRMED ORDER This 25 th day of June 2008, upon consideration of the appeal of Angela D. Husfelt ( Husfelt ), from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the Board ) denying her claim for unemployment benefits against her former employ er, the M ary Cam pbell Ce nter, Inc. ( MCC ), it appea rs to the C ourt that: 1 1. Husfelt was employed as a certified activities assistant with MCC from September 9, 2005 until March 1, 2007, when she was terminated.1 MCC terminated Ms. Husfelt based on two separate incidences involving alleged falsification of her time card and intention al miscon duct. 2 On February 18, 2007, Husfe lt arrived la te to work and forgot to clock in.3 At 12:49 that afternoon, Ms. Husfelt called into the MCC and asked another MCC employee to clock in for her. The employee did so and the time card reflected a 12:49 p.m. clock in time for Ms. Husfelt. At the end of that day, Ms. H usfelt ask ed anoth er MC C emp loyee to cross out the 12:49 p.m. and insert 10:00 a.m. as he r clock-in time. 4 The other employee complied and altered the time card. 2. On February 24, 2007, Ms. Husfelt transported MCC residents, staff and volunteers in an MCC vehicle to Atlantic City. While en route, Ms. Husfe lt encountered a traffic control officer at an intersection. The officer instructed Ms. Husfe lt to turn, but Ms. Husfelt refused and called the officer a skank. 5 Ms. H usfelt had been disciplined by MCC for two similar incidents in 2006.6 Durin g one in cident, 1 Docket Item ( D.I. ) 5 at 2, 42. 2 D.I. 5 at 5, 16. 3 D.I. 5 at 5. 4 D.I. 5 at 35, 43-44, 85-86. 5 D.I. 5 at 5, 44, 52. 6 D.I. 5 at 79. 2 Ms. Husfelt was rude and disrespectful to a resident. During the other incident, Ms. Husfe lt called a fellow M CC em ployee a b itch. 7 For each of the 2006 incidents, Ms. Husfe lt received written notice of the disciplinary action taken.8 Ms. Husfelt signed the incident report regarding her behavior toward the resident, but refused to sign the report concerning the incident with the fellow employee.9 3. At the hearing before the Board, Debra Franklin ( Ms. Franklin ), the MCC representative, testified that Ms. Husfelt was interviewed regarding the two recent instances that led to her termination and ask ed for h er input. 10 Accor ding to Ms. Franklin, Ms. Husfelt was suspended pending the investigation into the incidents.11 Based upon the facts gathered during the investigation and the seriousn ess of the vio lations, the MCC decided to termin ate Ms. H usfelt. 12 4. Ms. Husfelt filed for unemployment compensation with the Delaware Department of Lab or ( DO L ) on March 3, 2007.13 On April 4, 2007, a Claims Depu ty for the DOL determined that the MCC terminated Ms. Husfelt for wanton and 7 Id. 8 D.I.5 at 69, 70. 9 Id. 10 D.I. 5 at 79. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 D.I. 5 at 20. 3 willful misconduct constituting just cause.14 Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314 (2), this finding disqualified Ms. Husfelt from receiving unemployment compensation.15 5. On April 13, 2007, Ms. Husfelt appealed the Claims Deputy s decision to the Appeals Referee. After a hearing, the Appeals Referee issued his decision on May 23, 2007, reversing the Claims D eputy s determination that Ms. Husfelt was terminated for just cause. The Referee explained in her d ecision that while Ms. Husfelt s actions were certainly inappropriate in both incidents and she certainly may have exercised poor judgment, her conduct did not rise to the level of willful or wanton misconduct. 16 As a res ult, the A ppeals R eferee co ncluded that Ms . Husfe lt was entitled to unemployment compensation.17 6. On June 1, 2007, the MCC appealed the Referee s decision to the Board and a hearing was held on June 27, 2007. The Board issued its decision on July 6, 2007, reversing the Referee s decision upon concluding that Ms. Husfelt s actions gave the MC C just cau se for term ination because the misconduct was willful and 14 D.I. 5 at 22. 15 19 Del. C. §3314(2) states that: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: For the week in which the individual was discharged from the individual's work for just cause in connection with the individual's work and for each week thereafter until the individual has been employed each of 4 subsequent weeks... 16 D.I. 5 at 30. 17 Id. 4 wanton. In making its determination, the Board applied a two part test that examines whether or not an employee conduct policy existed and, secondly, whether the employee was aware of the po licy.18 In support of its decision, the Board relied upon the MCC s employee handbook, which indicates that altering timecards or records and disorde rly/antago nistic conduct on company premises are deemed policy violations and may result in immediate termination.19 The Board also relied upon proof that Ms. Husfe lt had acknowledged her understanding of these conditions of employment, as indicated by her signature on an employee intake form.20 Additionally, the Board considered the previous disciplin ary proceedings in which Ms. Husfelt had been involved as further evidence of her kno wledge of comp any policies and procedures. Finally, the Board considered Ms Husfelt s testimony at the hearing, during which she admitted to altering her time card and to calling the traffic officer a skank in the presence of MC C residents. 21 7. On appeal to this Cou rt, Ms. Husfelt challen ges the M CC s d ecision to terminate her and argues that the reasons MCC provided for her termination were unjust. 22 The MC C respo nds that th e Board s decision to deny M s. Husf elt 18 D.I. 5 at 67 (citing McCoy v. Occidental Chemical Corp., 1996 WL 111126 (Del.Super.Ct. Feb. 7, 1996). 19 D.I. 5 at 67. 20 D.I. 31. 21 D.I. 5 at 53, 54, and 56. 22 D.I. 9. 5 unemployment compensation was legally correct and supported by substantial evidenc e. 8. This Court r epeatedly has emp hasized th e limited ex tent of its appellate review of administrative determinations. The Court s review is confined to ensuring that the hearing officer made no errors of law and determining whether substantial evidence supports the hearing officer s factual findings.23 Questions of law that arise from the hearing officer s decision are subject to de novo review, pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 3(c), which requires the Court to determine whether the hearing officer erred in formulating or applying legal precepts. 24 Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind mig ht accept a s adequ ate to sup port a conclus ion. 25 It is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of the evidenc e. 26 The substantial evidence standard of review contemplates a significant degree of deference to the hearing officer s f actual con clusions and its application of those conclusions to the appropriate legal standards. 27 In its revie w, the Court w ill consider the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below.28 23 Canyon Const. v. Williams, 2003 WL 1387137, at *1 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2003); Hall v. Rollins Leasing, 1996 WL 659476, at *2-3 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 4, 1996). 24 See Anchor Motor Freight v. Ciabattoni, 716 A.2d 154, 156 (Del. 1998); Hudson v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 569 A.2d 1168, 1170 (Del. 1990). 25 Breeding v. Contractors-One, Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1998). 26 Id. 27 Hall, 1996 WL 659476, at *2 (citing D EL. CODE ANN . tit. 29, § 10142(d)). 28 General Motors Corp. v. Guy, 1991 WL 190491, at *3 (Del.Super.Ct. Aug. 16, 1991). 6 9. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314, an employee is disqualified from receiving unemployment compe nsation if she is discharged for just cause. Just cause is defined as a willful or w anton act or pattern o f conduct in v iolation of the em ployer s interest, the employee s duties, or the employee s expecte d standa rd of co nduct. 29 Willful and wanton conduct is that which is evidenced by either conscious action, or reckless indifference leading to a deviation from es tablished and acce ptable workplace performance. 30 There is no requirement that the conduct be performed with bad motive or malice.31 10. The record b efore the Board containe d the Sta ndards of Conduct for MCC employees as laid out in the employee manual. Accor ding to th e manu al, employees have a responsibility to the Center, the residents, and your fellow employees to adhere to certain r ules of b ehavior and con duct. 32 The manual makes clear that a violation of these rules of behavior could result in immediate dismissal without warning.33 Among these rules was one that prohibited an employee from altering or causing someone to alter the employee s timecard.34 Another rule forbade 29 Avon Products, Inc. v. Wilson, 513 A.2d 1315 (Del. 1986). 30 MRPC Financial Management, LLC v. Carter, 2003 WL 21517977, *4 (Del. Super. 2003). 31 Coleman v. Department of Labor, 288 A.2d 285, 288 (Del. Super. 1972). 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 D.I. 5 at 67 7 obscene or abusive language and disorderly or antagonistic conduct on company premises. A doc ument p resented as eviden ce to the B oard co ntained Ms . Husfelt s signature, acknowledging her receipt of the manual. The previous disciplinary actions taken against Ms. Husfelt also indicated her knowledge and understanding of the standard of cond uct expe cted of h er durin g her em ployment with the MCC. Additionally, Ms. Husfelt admitted to her behavior in connection with each incident that led to her termination.35 11. Based on the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the Board applied the correct legal standards and that its decision is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the decision of the Board denying Ms. Husfelt unemployment compensation must be AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Judge Joseph R. Slights, III Original to Prothonotary cc: Ange la D. H usfelt Michael Stafford, Esquire 35 The Court is satisfied that MCC s proffered just cause for terminating Ms. Husfelt satisfies the heightened scrutiny called for in Vann v. Town of Cheswold, 945 A.2d 1118, 1122 (Del. 2008). 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.