IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ADRIENNE M. MCGRELLIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No.: N15A-09-003 ALR ) VISIONQUEST NATIONAL &, ) UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) APPEAL BOARD, ) ) Appellees. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Submitted: March 23, 2016 Decided: March 30, 2016
On Appeal from Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board AFFIRMED
Adrienne M. McGrellis, Appellant
Paige J. Schmittinger, Esq., Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
ROCANELLI, J. This is an appeal by Adrienne McGrellis (“Claimant”) from a determination
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“UIAB”) issued on August 31,
2015 in Case No. 20990828. The UIAB determined that Claimant voluntarily
terminated her employment with VisionQuest National (“Employer”) without good
cause and, therefore, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
Claimant filed this appeal regarding the UIAB’s decision. For the reasons set forth
below, the decision of the UIAB is AFFIRMED.
Facts and Procedural History
Claimant worked for Employer as a pre-trial Family Court case manager
from September 11, 2013 to May 1, 2015, when she resigned. The Department of
Labor issued a Notice of Determination on May 19, 2015, disqualifying Claimant
for unemployment insurance benefits, finding that Claimant voluntarily terminated
her employment without good cause. Claimant filed a timely appeal.
An Appeals Referee conducted an Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Hearing on June 18, 2015. Following the hearing, the Appeals Referee issued an
opinion affirming the determination that Claimant voluntarily terminated her
employment without good cause. Claimant filed a timely appeal of the Appeals
Referee’s decision.
The UIAB held a hearing on July 22, 2015. In a decision issued on August
21, 2015, the UIAB affirmed the decision of the Appeals Referee by a vote of 3-1.
1 The UIAB determined that Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment
without good cause and, therefore, Claimant was disqualified from the receipt of
unemployment benefits. Claimant now appeals the decision of the UIAB.
Standard of Review
The Court’s appellate review of decisions of the UIAB is limited. This
Court will not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its
own factual findings.1 Instead, the Court is restricted to a consideration of the
record.2 The Court considers the record in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party before the UIAB.3
The scope of review for any court considering a decision of the UIAB is
whether the UIAB abused its discretion.4 Absent abuse of discretion, the Court
must uphold a decision of the UIAB.5 An appellate review of an UIAB decision is
limited to determining whether the UIAB’s finding and conclusions are free from
legal error and are supported by substantial evidence in the record.6 Substantial
evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to
1 Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778, 782 (Del. 2011). 2 Hubbard v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 352 A.2d 761, 763 (Del. 1976); Brown v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2011 WL 863310, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 3, 2011) ; Lively v. Dover Wipes Co., 2003 WL 21213415, at *1 (Del. Super. May 16, 2003); see Christopher v. Zerefos, 2001 WL 1729138, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 26, 2001). 3 Thompson, 25 A.3d at 782. 4 See Funk v. Unemp’t Ins. App. Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991). 5 Id at 225; Dept. of Labor v. Medical Placement Services, Inc., 457 A.2d 382, 383 (Del. Super. 1982). 6 PAL of Wilmington v. Graham, 2008 WL 2582986, at *3 (Del. Super. June 18, 2008). 2 support a conclusion.7 The decision of the UIAB must be affirmed if it is
supported by substantial evidence.8
Discussion
This Court must decide if there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the UIAB’s decision that Claimant voluntarily left her employment
without good cause such that she is disqualified from the receipt of unemployment
benefits. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Employer, the
prevailing party before the UIAB,9 the Court is satisfied that there is substantial
evidence in the record to support the findings of the UIAB and that such findings
are free from legal error.
I. The Evidence before the UIAB
The UIAB considered the evidence presented at the July 22, 2015 UIAB
hearing and the evidence presented to the Appeals Referee. Claimant was the only
witness at both hearings; Employer did not attend. At the hearings, Claimant
admitted that she resigned from her employment; therefore, the only issue was
whether Claimant terminated her employment for good cause. At the UIAB
hearing, Claimant argued that she resigned for good cause because she was
7 Histed v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del. 1993); PAL of Wilmington, 2008 WL 2582986, at *3. 8 General Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686 (Del. 1960); Lively v. Dover Wipes Co., 2003 WL 21213415, at *1 (Del. Super. May 16, 2003). 9 See Thompson, 25 A.3d at 782 (noting that the Court viewed the record in the light most favorable to the Claimant where Claimant was the prevailing party before the UIAB). 3 concerned for her physical safety while working for Employer. Claimant
explained that her clients are juveniles on probation and, as part of her job
description, she is required to visit her clients at their homes and/or at their schools
and some of these visits take place in the City of Wilmington, Delaware. Claimant
expressed serious concern for her safety because of the rise of crime in Wilmington
and the lack of a weapon for protection or the assistance of a partner. In the past,
Claimant made a request to Employer to have her client visits in Employer’s
office; however, Employer declined Claimant’s request. Further, Claimant
described two situations in which she felt her safety was at danger. In one
situation, Claimant observed her client be attacked. In another situation, Claimant
was approached by a client’s parents and Claimant felt threatened.
II. The UIAB’s determination that Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence.
An employee who voluntarily terminates her employment “without good
cause attributable to such work” is disqualified from receiving compensation
benefits.10 The claimant employee has the burden of establishing good cause.11
The Delaware Supreme Court has provided that a claimant establishes good cause
to terminate her employment where:
10 Benjamin v. Net, Inc., 2013 WL 1091219, at *4 (Del. Super. Feb. 26, 2013) aff’d, 72 A.3d 501 (Del. 2013). 11 Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ADRIENNE M. MCGRELLIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No.: N15A-09-003 ALR ) VISIONQUEST NATIONAL &, ) UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) APPEAL BOARD, ) ) Appellees. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Submitted: March 23, 2016 Decided: March 30, 2016
On Appeal from Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board AFFIRMED
Adrienne M. McGrellis, Appellant
Paige J. Schmittinger, Esq., Department of Justice, Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
ROCANELLI, J. This is an appeal by Adrienne McGrellis (“Claimant”) from a determination
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“UIAB”) issued on August 31,
2015 in Case No. 20990828. The UIAB determined that Claimant voluntarily
terminated her employment with VisionQuest National (“Employer”) without good
cause and, therefore, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
Claimant filed this appeal regarding the UIAB’s decision. For the reasons set forth
below, the decision of the UIAB is AFFIRMED.
Facts and Procedural History
Claimant worked for Employer as a pre-trial Family Court case manager
from September 11, 2013 to May 1, 2015, when she resigned. The Department of
Labor issued a Notice of Determination on May 19, 2015, disqualifying Claimant
for unemployment insurance benefits, finding that Claimant voluntarily terminated
her employment without good cause. Claimant filed a timely appeal.
An Appeals Referee conducted an Unemployment Insurance Appeals
Hearing on June 18, 2015. Following the hearing, the Appeals Referee issued an
opinion affirming the determination that Claimant voluntarily terminated her
employment without good cause. Claimant filed a timely appeal of the Appeals
Referee’s decision.
The UIAB held a hearing on July 22, 2015. In a decision issued on August
21, 2015, the UIAB affirmed the decision of the Appeals Referee by a vote of 3-1.
1 The UIAB determined that Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment
without good cause and, therefore, Claimant was disqualified from the receipt of
unemployment benefits. Claimant now appeals the decision of the UIAB.
Standard of Review
The Court’s appellate review of decisions of the UIAB is limited. This
Court will not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its
own factual findings.1 Instead, the Court is restricted to a consideration of the
record.2 The Court considers the record in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party before the UIAB.3
The scope of review for any court considering a decision of the UIAB is
whether the UIAB abused its discretion.4 Absent abuse of discretion, the Court
must uphold a decision of the UIAB.5 An appellate review of an UIAB decision is
limited to determining whether the UIAB’s finding and conclusions are free from
legal error and are supported by substantial evidence in the record.6 Substantial
evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to
1 Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778, 782 (Del. 2011). 2 Hubbard v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 352 A.2d 761, 763 (Del. 1976); Brown v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2011 WL 863310, at *2 (Del. Super. Feb. 3, 2011) ; Lively v. Dover Wipes Co., 2003 WL 21213415, at *1 (Del. Super. May 16, 2003); see Christopher v. Zerefos, 2001 WL 1729138, at *1 (Del. Super. Nov. 26, 2001). 3 Thompson, 25 A.3d at 782. 4 See Funk v. Unemp’t Ins. App. Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991). 5 Id at 225; Dept. of Labor v. Medical Placement Services, Inc., 457 A.2d 382, 383 (Del. Super. 1982). 6 PAL of Wilmington v. Graham, 2008 WL 2582986, at *3 (Del. Super. June 18, 2008). 2 support a conclusion.7 The decision of the UIAB must be affirmed if it is
supported by substantial evidence.8
Discussion
This Court must decide if there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the UIAB’s decision that Claimant voluntarily left her employment
without good cause such that she is disqualified from the receipt of unemployment
benefits. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Employer, the
prevailing party before the UIAB,9 the Court is satisfied that there is substantial
evidence in the record to support the findings of the UIAB and that such findings
are free from legal error.
I. The Evidence before the UIAB
The UIAB considered the evidence presented at the July 22, 2015 UIAB
hearing and the evidence presented to the Appeals Referee. Claimant was the only
witness at both hearings; Employer did not attend. At the hearings, Claimant
admitted that she resigned from her employment; therefore, the only issue was
whether Claimant terminated her employment for good cause. At the UIAB
hearing, Claimant argued that she resigned for good cause because she was
7 Histed v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del. 1993); PAL of Wilmington, 2008 WL 2582986, at *3. 8 General Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686 (Del. 1960); Lively v. Dover Wipes Co., 2003 WL 21213415, at *1 (Del. Super. May 16, 2003). 9 See Thompson, 25 A.3d at 782 (noting that the Court viewed the record in the light most favorable to the Claimant where Claimant was the prevailing party before the UIAB). 3 concerned for her physical safety while working for Employer. Claimant
explained that her clients are juveniles on probation and, as part of her job
description, she is required to visit her clients at their homes and/or at their schools
and some of these visits take place in the City of Wilmington, Delaware. Claimant
expressed serious concern for her safety because of the rise of crime in Wilmington
and the lack of a weapon for protection or the assistance of a partner. In the past,
Claimant made a request to Employer to have her client visits in Employer’s
office; however, Employer declined Claimant’s request. Further, Claimant
described two situations in which she felt her safety was at danger. In one
situation, Claimant observed her client be attacked. In another situation, Claimant
was approached by a client’s parents and Claimant felt threatened.
II. The UIAB’s determination that Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence.
An employee who voluntarily terminates her employment “without good
cause attributable to such work” is disqualified from receiving compensation
benefits.10 The claimant employee has the burden of establishing good cause.11
The Delaware Supreme Court has provided that a claimant establishes good cause
to terminate her employment where:
10 Benjamin v. Net, Inc., 2013 WL 1091219, at *4 (Del. Super. Feb. 26, 2013) aff’d, 72 A.3d 501 (Del. 2013). 11 Id. 4 (i) an employee voluntarily leaves employment for reasons attributable to issues within the employer’s control and under circumstances in which no reasonably prudent employee would have remained employed; and (ii) the employee first exhausts all reasonable alternatives to resolve the issues before voluntarily terminating his or her employment.12
An employee does not have good cause to terminate her employment “merely
because there is an undesirable or unsafe situation connected with the
employment.”13 Similarly, unhappiness arising out of an unpleasant work
environment, without more, does not constitute good cause to terminate
employment.14
While the Court is sympathetic to the nature of Employer’s work, the risks
of which Claimant is concerned are precisely the type of risks associated with her
duties as a pre-trial case manager. Importantly, Claimant was aware of these risks
before accepting the position. Claimant testified that, upon hiring, Claimant was
aware that she would be providing various community-based services to at-risk
clients in Wilmington. At the time she was hired, Claimant was aware that she
would be making client visits both alone and unarmed. There was no change in the
Claimant’s duties from the time that she was hired. While Claimant’s safety
concerns are understandable, her concerns do not rise to the level of such that “no
reasonably prudent employee would have remained employed” to establish good
12 Thompson, 25 A.3d at 783. 13 Ament v. Rosenbluth Int’l, 2000 WL 1610770, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 31, 2000). 14 Thompson, 25 A.3d at 784. 5 cause,15 particularly where Claimant understood the risks and nature of her
employment before her employment commenced. Accordingly, there is substantial
evidence in the record to support the decision of the UIAB that Claimant
voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause.
Conclusion
The Court has examined the record below and determined that substantial
evidence supports the decision of the UIAB. The decision is free from legal error
and the UIAB did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the decision of the UIAB
must be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March, 2016.
Andrea L. Rocanelli _____________________________ The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
15 Id. at 783 (“. . . an employee voluntarily leaves employment for reasons attributable to issues within the employer’s control and under circumstances in which no reasonably prudent employee would have remained employed . . . .”). 6