Tesla Industries, Inc. v. Schnee, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY TESLA INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. JESSICA SCHNEE, and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C. A. No. 03A-11-001-JEB Submitted: May 5, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Decision Affirmed. OPINION Appearances: Brian A. Sullivan, Esquire, and Amy D. Brown, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Appellant Tesla Industries, Inc. Jessica Schnee, pro se, 22 Hobart Drive, Apt. A-4, Newark, DE 19713. Appellee. Mary Page Bailey, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Judge John E. Babiarz, Jr. This is the Cou rt s decision on an appeal of a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ( Board ). For the reasons explained below, the decision granting unemployment benefits to Claimant Jessica Schnee is affirmed. Because a full recitation of the pertinent facts is provided in this Court s previous Opinion in this matter, 1 a summary of the facts is provided herein. Claimant worked for Employer Tesla Industries, Inc. as an accounting assistant from April 9, 2001, through May 25, 2001. Her hours were 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. On May 11, she was asked if sh e could work until 5 p.m., and she explained that she had to pick up her daughter by 5 p.m. from the person who watched her d uring the day. On May 21 or 22, Claimant enrolled her daughter in New Begin nings L earning Cente r, a local daycare facility. On May 24, Claimant was again aske d if she cou ld work un til 5 p.m., and sh e said she w ould see what she could do. The next day she was asked if she had rearranged her schedule, and when she said no, she was fi red. Claimant s petition for unemployment insurance benefits was granted, and Employer appealed to this Court. After two remands, the appeal is before the Court for the third time. In its most recent decision, the Board determined that Claimant had not been terminated for just cause in connection with her work and was therefore entitled to workers compensation benef its. In disputes inv olving an em ployee s r ight to u nemp loyment i nsuran ce ben efits, the 1 Tesla Ind. v. Schnee, Del. Super., C.A. No. 02A-07-005, Babiarz, J. (Opinion)(June 24, 2003). 2 employer has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee was dismissed for just cause.2 Just cause is defined as willful o r wanton miscond uct in violation of the employer s interest, the employee s duties or the employee s expected standard of condu ct.3 On appeal, Employer argues that the Board s finding that Claimant was not terminated for just cause is not supported by substantial evidenc e and is inappr opriatel y based o n the B oard s a ccepta nce of Claim ant s tes timony. When reviewing a decision of an adm inistrative boa rd, this Cou rt s role is not to make factual findings or to revisit the Board s credibility determinations, unless they constitute an abuse of discretion.4 The Court s functions are to determine whether the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence and to reverse clear errors of law.5 In this case, the Board found Claimant to be a credible witness and accepted her testim ony. Claiman t stated that she knew she had to change her schedule but that she had been told that her job was not in jeopardy. Af ter the first requ est to work til 5 p.m., Claimant placed her daughter in a new daycare situation, but sh e believed th at she wo uld have to pay more to have the child stay beyond 5 o clock. When w as asked a second time to work later, her daughter had been in the new daycare for only a few days. To com ply with the req uest, 2 Hyatt v. Mills Corp., 2005 WL 1077728 at * 2 (Del. Super.). 3 Avon Products, Inc. v. Wilson, 513 A.2d 1315, 1317 (1986). 4 Ingram v. Barrett s Bus. Serv., 794 A.2d 1160 (Del. 2002). 5 Boughton v. Dept. of Labor, 300 A.2d 25, 26 (Del. Super. Ct. 1972). 3 Claimant had to make different arrangements with the daycare and with her boyfriend since they shared a car. Claimant was given less than 24 hours to make these changes. Based on this testimony, the Board found that Claimant made reasonable efforts to change her sched ule but was not given enough time to do so. The Board also found that any warning Employer may have given was vag ue and tha t Claimant re asonably belie ved that he r job was n ot in jeopard y. The Board s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the form of Claimant s testimonial evidence, and there is no error of law in the decision. The Court concludes that the Bo ard acte d withi n its disc retion in award ing une mploym ent ben efits. For these reasons, the Board s decision granting unemployment insurance b enefits to Claimant Jessica Schnee is Affirmed. It Is So ORDERED. Judge John E . Babiarz, Jr. JEB,jr./bjw/ram Original to Prothonotary 4
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.
