Griffin v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
GREG GRIFFIN,
Appellant,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
APPEAL BOARD,
Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. N11A-04-003 WCC
Submitted: February 20, 2012
Decided: May 31, 2012
On Appellant/Claimant’s Appeal from the
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board – REMANDED
ORDER
Gregory Q. Griffin. 39 Boxelder Lane, Bear, DE 19701. Pro se Appellant.
Caroline Cross, Esquire and Katisha Fortune, Esquire. 820 N. French Street, 6th
Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801. Attorneys for Appellee.
CARPENTER, J.
This 31st day of May, 2012, upon consideration of Claimant Greg Griffin’s
appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, it appears to the Court
that:
1.
Greg Griffin worked for Crystal Springs1 for about one month before he fell
ill.2 On account of his illness Griffin eventually stopped working for
Crystal Springs and applied for unemployment benefits. A Claims Deputy
from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied Griffin’s
application for benefits on October 28, 2010, finding that Griffin had
voluntarily left his job without good cause.3
2.
Griffin appealed the Claims Deputy’s decision and was granted a hearing
before an Appeals Referee. Nobody from Crystal Springs appeared for the
hearing. The Appeals Referee reversed the Claims Deputy’s decision and
awarded Griffin unemployment benefits because she found he had been
terminated without just cause.4
3.
Crystal Springs subsequently filed a letter objecting to some of the
Referee’s findings but not explaining why Crystal Springs was absent at the
1
The opinions issued throughout the administrative proceedings reference the employer as “Chrystal Springs.”
However, corre spond ence from the employer reflects that the company is Crystal Springs.
2
R. 44.
3
R. 6.
4
R. 13.
2
hearing.5 In spite of this, the Board remanded the case without any direction
or guidance and the case was assigned to a different Appeals Referee
without further explanation.6
4.
Crystal Springs appeared for the second hearing before the new Appeals
Referee, but Griffin did not. The Referee determined that Griffin was
discharged from his work for just cause and denied Griffin benefits.7
However, instead of reviewing the previous Referee’s decision in light of
the evidence submitted by Crystal Springs, the Referee wrote a decision as
if the previous Referee’s decision had been vacated. In fact, the second
Referee’s decision notes that it was affirming and modifying the Claims
Deputy’s decision and does not even reference the previous Referee’s
decision. 8
5.
Griffin appealed the second Referee’s decision to the Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board and the Board scheduled a hearing. Interestingly,
the notice of the hearing represented that the hearing was on appeal from the
5
R. 31.
R. 33.
7
R. 38.
8
See R. 38 (“The decision of the claims deputy is modified and affirmed.”) (emphasis added).
6
3
first Referee’s decision.9 When neither Griffin nor Crystal Springs appeared
on the date of the hearing, the Board dismissed the case.10
6.
Griffin filed an appeal to the Board’s decision to dismiss the case. The
Board styled Griffin’s submission as a motion to rehear the case.11 The
Board found no legal justifications for granting a rehearing, and
accordingly, Griffin’s second appeal was denied on April 6, 2011.12 It is
this decision that Griffin appeals to the Superior Court.
7.
Procedurally, this case has been so mishandled that it is difficult for the
Court to ensure that it has been fairly litigated or that a legally sufficient
determination of the issues has been made. While the parties are partially at
fault by their non-appearance at certain hearings, it appears the decision of
the Referees are more related to who appeared at the hearing rather than a
true review of the issues presented. It would be unfair to allow a decision to
stand simply because the employer happened to appear last.13 Therefore the
Court is remanding the matter to the Board and ordering it to conduct
another hearing, providing an opportunity for both parties to present any
9
R. 57.
R. 62.
11
R. 67 -68. T his is desp ite the fact tha t the Board ’s first hearing purp orted ly concerned the first Referee’s d ecision .
12
R. 68 .
13
Griffin asserts he did not receive notice of certain hearings, but because the Court is remanding the case, it will not
specifically address this issue. The B oard should take steps to ensure that both parties are aware of the next hearing
and document the parties’ receipt of that notice.
10
4
arguments relevant to the issues previously presented. The Board is not
required to take any additional testimony but is obligated to consider the
record created before both Appeals Referees. It is these records, together
with the arguments presented at the new hearing, that the Board should use
to make its determination. Because of the parties’ previous conduct
regarding their attendance, if either party fails to appear at the hearing
before the Board, that party will be foreclosed from any further appeals of
this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED
/s/ William C. Carpenter, Jr.
Judge William C. Carpenter, Jr.
5
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.
