Davis v. Mountaire Farms.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
T. HENLEY GRAVES
SUSSEX COU NTY C OUR THO USE
RESIDENT JUDGE
1 THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947
(302) 856-5257
January 17, 2012
Willie Davis, III
1204 Caitlins Way
Millsboro, Delaware 19966
Re:
Davis v. Mountaire Farms;
C.A. No. S11A-01-008
On Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board: AFFIRMED
Date Submitted: January 5, 2012
Date Decided: January 17, 2012
Dear Mr. Davis:
Willie Davis, III appeals the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board (“the Board”) to dism iss Mr. Davis’ appeal from an Appeals Referee’s determination
that Mr. Davis had been discharged from his place of employment for just cause in
connection with that employment. The Board’s decision is affirmed for the reasons stated
below.
Nature and Stage of the Proceedings
Mr. Davis was employed by Mountaire Farms (“Employer”) as a truck driver for
approximately two years until he was terminated on September 14, 2010. A Claims
Deputy reviewed Mr. Davis’ application for unemployment benefits and determined Mr.
Davis had been terminated for just cause and was disqualified from the receipt of benefits.
Mr. Davis appealed that determination and a hearing was held before an Appeals Referee
on Novem ber 4, 2010. By way of written decision mailed Novem ber 12, 2010, the
Appeals Referee found that Mr. Davis had failed to conduct a pre-inspection check of the
truck he was operating on September 14, 2010. As a result of his failure to conduct the
check, the boom attached to the truck came loose and caused significant damage to the
company truck and a power line. The Appeals Referee also found Mr. Davis failed to
report the accident to Employer and left the scene of an accident. Mr. Davis’ failure to
inspect the boom and the boom alarm prior to driving was a violation of Employer’s
company policy. Employer conducted an internal investigation and determined that the
boom alarm was not functioning and Mr. Davis should have realized it was not
functional. The Appeals Referee found the Employer’s witnesses to be credible. The
Appeals Referee affirmed the Claims Deputy’s decision, concluding Employer had
established by a preponderance of the evidence that it discharged Mr. Davis from
employment for just cause in connection with his work.
Mr. Davis filed an appeal of the Appeals Referee’s decision w ith the Board. A
hearing date was set for January 11, 2011. Mr. Davis failed to appear at the hearing and
the Board dismissed his appeal. Mr. Davis appeals that dismissal to this Court.
Discussion
When reviewing the decisions of the Board, this Court must determine whether
2
the Board’s findings and conclusions of law are free from legal error and are supported by
substantial evidence in the record.1 “Substantial evidence” is “such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” 2 The Court’s
review is limited: “It is not the appellate court’s role to weigh the evidence, determine
credibility questions or make its own factual findings, but merely to decide if the evidence
is legally adequate to support the agency’s factual findings.” 3
Section 3314 of Title 19 of the Delaw are Code provides, in pertinent part, that one
shall be disqualified for unem ploym ent benefits if he has been “discharged from [his] work
for just cause in connection with [his] work.” 4 “Generally, the term ‘just cause’ refers to
a wilful or wanton act in violation of either the employer’s interest, or of the employee’s
duties, or of the employee’s expected standard of conduct.” 5
Where a decision to
terminate an employee is based upon misconduct, the employer has the burden of
1
Unemploym ent Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265 (Del. 1981); Pochvatilla
v. U.S. Postal Serv., 1997 WL 524062 (Del. Super.); 19 Del. C. § 3323(a) (“In any judicial
proceeding under this section, the findings of the [Board] as to the facts, if supported
by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the
Court shall be confined to questions of law.”).
2
Gorrell v. Division of Vocational Rehab., 1996 WL 453356, at *2 (Del. Super.).
3
McManus v. Christiana Serv. Co., 1197 WL 127953, at *1 (Del. Super.).
4
19 Del. C. § 3314(2).
5
Abex Corp. v. Todd, 235 A .2d 271, 272 (Del. Super. 1967).
3
establishing the misconduct. 6
On appeal, Mr. Davis attempts to revisit the evidence presented below and states
that he did, in fact, inspect his truck prior to driving it on September 14, 2010, and did not
notice anything wrong. Further, Mr. Davis notes he was “proven innocent” 7 of leaving
the scene of an accident; therefore, the traffic charge for leaving the scene of an accident
should not have been considered by the tribunal below. In short, M r. Davis argues the
Appeals Referee’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
Section 3322 of Title 19 of the Delaware Code provides, “[J]udicial review [of a
Board decision] ... shall be permitted only after any party claiming to be aggrieved thereby
has exhausted all administrative remedies as provided by this chapter.” 8 This Court is
without jurisdiction to hear the merits of a case where a party has not exhausted his
administrative remedies because he failed to appear at a Board hearing that he requested.9
Because Mr. Davis does not appeal the Board’s exercise of discretion in dismissing his
6
McCoy v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 1996 WL 111126, at *3 (Del. Super. Feb. 7,
7
It appears from the record that the charge was dropped.
8
19 Del. C. § 3322(a).
1996).
9
Jackson v. Murphy Marine Servs., Inc., 2002 WL 1288791, at *1 (Del. Super.);
compare Filanowski v. Port Contractors, Inc., 2007 WL 64758 (Del. Super.) (finding the
appeal not procedurally barred because (a) the party who failed to appear at the Board
hearing was not the party aggrieved by the Appeals Referee’s decision and (b) the
Board did not dismiss the appeal but heard evidence and decided the matter on the
merits).
4
appeal thereto, there is no issue properly before the Court at this time.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, the Board’s dismissal of Mr. Davis’ appeal from the
Appeals Referee’s decision is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ T. Henley Graves
oc:
cc:
Prothonotary
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
Mountaire Farms
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.
