Walker v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY TEREDA D. WALKER, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, Appellee. : : : : : : : : : : C.A. No. K14A-06-006 TBD Submitted: December 2, 2014 Decided: March 12, 2015 ORDER Upon an Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Affirmed. Tereda D. Walker, pro se Paige J. Schmittinger, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware; attorney for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. WITHAM, R.J. Tereda D. Walker v. UIAB Case No. K14A-06-006 TBD March 12, 2015 The issue before the Court is whether the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board correctly determined that the Appellant was disqualified from the receipt of unemployment benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause attributable to her work. FACTS AND PROCEDURE This is a pro se appeal by Tereda Walker (hereinafter “Walker”) from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (hereinafter “the UIAB” or “the Board”) affirming the decision of the Appeals Referee which found Walker was disqualified from receipt of unemployment benefits pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(1). Since the Board affirmed the Referee’s determination and adopted her factual findings as those of the Board, the Court begins by restating the factual findings made by the Appeals Referee, substantially in their entirety: [Walker] worked for the Delaware Department of State/Division of Corporations (hereinafter the “employer”) as a franchise tax assistant from September 24, 2012 through January 29, 2014. At the time of discharge, she was working full-time and earned $13.16 per hour. [Walker] was absent from work under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), beginning August 1, 2013 as she was to undergo surgery and rehabilitation in connection with an underlying medical condition. When her FMLA expired, she continued to take leave under short term disability and was due to return to work on January 29, 2014. However, 2 Tereda D. Walker v. UIAB Case No. K14A-06-006 TBD March 12, 2015 on October 19, 2013, her daughter, born in August 1992, became seriously ill with Guillain-Barre Syndrome while away at college. Her daughter was paralyzed as a result of the illness and was hospitalized twice for prolonged periods. After her second release from the hospital, her daughter was required to go through extensive rehabilitation. Even though she was recovering herself, she needed to provide care for her daughter and continues to provide care for her daughter during the rehabilitation process. As she was unable to work, she resigned from employment effective January 29, 2014.1 Both the Appeals Referee and the Board ultimately concluded that Walker was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(1) because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause attributable to her employment. Now before this Court is Walker’s appeal. For the reasons stated below, this Court finds that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error, accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed. STANDARD OF REVIEW As with appeals from all administrative agencies, when a decision of the UIAB is appealed, this Court’s scope of review is limited to “determining whether the 1 R. at 46 (The employer’s representative and witness confirmed the facts as stated.). 3 Tereda D. Walker v. UIAB Case No. K14A-06-006 TBD March 12, 2015 Board’s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error.”2 Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”3 This Court will not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings.4 The Court considers the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below.5 Questions of law are reviewed de novo “to determine whether the Board erred in formulating or applying legal concepts.”6 If the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and there is no legal error, the Board’s decision will be affirmed.7 DISCUSSION Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(1), an individual is disqualified from the receipt of unemployment benefits if “the individual left work voluntarily without good cause 2 Sandefur v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd., 1993 WL 389217, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 27, 1993) (citations omitted). 3 Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981) (quoting Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)). 4 Hopkins Const., Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd., 1998 WL 960713, at *2 (Del. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 1998) (citing Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66-67 (Del. 1965)). 5 Smith v. Placers, Inc., 1993 WL 603375, at *2 (Del. Super. Nov. 17, 1993) (citation omitted). 6 Gaskill v. BesTemps, 2013 WL 5785288, at *2 (Del. Super. Oct. 2, 2013) (citing PAL of Wilmington v. Graham, 2008 WL 2582986, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. June 18, 2008)). 7 Smith, 1993 WL 603375, at *2 (citing Longobardi v. Unemployment Ins. App. Bd., 287 A.2d 690, 692 (Del. Super. 1971)). 4 Tereda D. Walker v. UIAB Case No. K14A-06-006 TBD March 12, 2015 attributable to such work. . . .”8 An employee voluntarily quits their employment when they leave on their own motion as opposed to being discharged, and have “a conscious intention to leave or terminate the employment.”9 The burden is on the employee to establish good cause attributable to the employment that justifies voluntarily leaving work.10 Good Cause must be primarily connected with the employment rather than based on personal reasons.11 The relevant facts of this case are almost identical to those in Baker. Walker submitted a resignation letter and voluntarily left her employment to provide total care for her adult daughter.12 She did so not meeting the statutory meaning of “good cause.” While the Court echoes the sentiment expressed by the Board’s decision and takes no pleasure in denying unemployment insurance benefits to Walker, Delaware law specifically precludes the benefits sought by Walker under these circumstances. Clearly, the need to care for her daughter is vitally important, but is nonetheless a 8 19 Del. C. § 3314(1). 9 Gsell v. Unclaimed Freight, 1995 WL 339026, at *2 (Del. Super. May 3, 1995) (citations omitted). 10 Hopkins Const., Inc., 1998 WL 960713, at *3 (citation omitted). 11 White v. Security Link, 658 A.2d 619 (Del. Super. 1994) see also Baker v. SPL Polyols, Inc., 1998 WL 109945 (Del. Super. Jan. 7, 1998), aff’d 1998 WL 372856 (Del. May 27, 1998) (The Court found that an employee who left work to care for her terminally ill husband did not do so for good cause within the meaning of the statute because the circumstances–while tragic– were entirely unrelated to her employment. 12 R. 11. 5 Tereda D. Walker v. UIAB Case No. K14A-06-006 TBD March 12, 2015 personal reason. Accordingly, the Board’s conclusion that Walker is disqualified from receiving benefits under § 3314(1) is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. CONCLUSION In light of the substantial evidence in support of the UIAB’s decision, as well as the absence of any error of law, the decision of the UIAB must be, and is, hereby AFFIRMED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ William L. Witham, Jr. Resident Judge WLW/dmh 6

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.