IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MUHAMMAD IRFAN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) UNEMPLOYEMENT INSURANCE ) C.A. No. N23A-05-009 MMJ APPEAL BOARD, ) ) Appellee. ) )
Submitted: February 1, 2024 Decided: March 25, 2024
Upon Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board AFFIRMED
Muhammad Irfan, Pro Se, Middletown, Delaware, Appellant. Matthew B. Frawley, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Delaware Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Victoria W. Counihan, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Delaware Division of Unemployment Insurance. JOHNSTON, J.
1 MEMORANDUM OPINION
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
In October 2018, Muhammad Irfan (“Claimant”) incorporated Mitech
Consultants, LLC, an S Corporation.1 Claimant is 100% owner of the business.2
Claimant has a Virginia license but is in the process of transferring the license to
Delaware.3 Claimant testified that he is an employee who used to receive a
paycheck from his corporation.4 Claimant states that he is looking for any kind of
work, but his priority is to get work through his corporation.5 There are no
employees other than himself.6 The nature of Claimant’s business is to provide
consulting services related to IT.7 Claimant had a client, but that client is no longer
with Claimant because the client was short on funding, leaving his company with
no clients and no source of revenue.8 Claimant testified that he is trying to get
clients for his company. He is spending eighty percent of his time trying to get a
1 Transcript of Referee’s Hearing at 7. 2 Id. at 15. 3 Id. at 16. 4 Id. at 6. 5 Id. at 10. 6 Id. at 15. 7 Id. at 13. 8 Id. at 11. 2 client through his company and twenty percent of his time looking for work
outside his company.9
Claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits in July 2022 and filed an
additional claim in December 2022 due to COVID. An appeals referee (“Referee”)
held a hearing on January 18, 2023. The Referee found that Claimant was self-
employed and thus ineligible for benefits.
Claimant appealed the Referee’s decision to the Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board. The Board issued its decision on March 29, 2023. The Board found
Claimant to be a full-time self-employed individual. Claimant owned the company.
Claimant’s main priority was finding a client for his business. The Board
concluded that Claimant was neither unemployed nor available for work.
Claimant appealed the Board’s decision to this Court on May 30, 2023.
Claimant asserts that when interviewed by the Referee, Claimant misunderstood
the questions being asked to him.10 Claimant asserts that he answered the questions
asked by the Referee relating to when Claimant was living and working in
Virginia.11 Claimant admits that he told the Referee that he spent eighty percent of
his time trying to get a client through his company and twenty percent of his time
9 Id. at 19. 10 Claimant’s Opening Brief at 1. 11 Id. 3 looking for jobs outside of his company.12 However, Claimant asserts that was a
mistake because of his misunderstanding of the question.13 Since moving to
Delaware, Claimant asserts that he is unemployed and looking for work, not
splitting his time performing any kind of work for his company.14 Thus, Claimant
is requesting a re-hearing by the Referee and or the “DA”15 to set the facts
straight.16
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, the Superior
Court must determine if the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence in the record and free from legal error.17 Substantial evidence is “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.”18 The Court must review the record to determine if the evidence is
legally adequate to support the Board’s factual findings.19 The Court does not
“weigh evidence, determine questions of credibility or make its own factual
12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 2. 15 It is unclear who Claimant intends to identify as “DA.” 16 Claimant’s Opening Brief at 2. 17 Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del. 1993). 18 Histed v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (citing Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (1981)). 19 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965). 4 findings.”20 If the record lacks satisfactory proof in support of the Board’s finding
or decision, the Court may overturn the Board’s decision.21 On appeal, the Superior
Court reviews legal issues de novo.22
ANALYSIS
At issue in this case is whether Claimant is eligible for unemployment
benefits when Claimant has testified that he is an employee who owns his own
company and spends the majority of his time looking for clients for his company.
To be eligible for unemployment benefits, Claimant must be within the
definition of unemployed.23
Section 3302(17) of title 19 of the Delaware Code provides:
“Unemployment” exists and an individual is “unemployed” in any week during which the individual performs no services and with respect to which no wages are payable to the individual, or in any week of less than full-time work if the wages payable to the individual with respect to such week are less than the individual’s weekly benefit amount plus whichever is the greater of $10 or 50% of the individual’s weekly benefit amount. The Department shall prescribe regulations applicable to unemployed individuals making such distinctions in the procedures as to total unemployment, part-total unemployment, partial unemployment of individuals attached to their regular
20 Id. at 67. 21 Id. at 66–67. 22 Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159, 1161 (Del. 2009). 23 Spicer v. Spicer Unlimited, 2005 WL 914469, at *2 (Del. Super.). 5 jobs and other forms of short-time work as the Department deems necessary.
Delaware courts have ruled that self-employment acts as a bar to receiving
unemployment benefits in Delaware.24 The term “self-employment” has not been
specifically defined by the General Assembly or by Delaware courts.25 However,
this Court has interpreted “self-employment” as existing where “an individual has
made more than de minimis efforts on behalf of an operating business that he or
she owns, regardless of whether the business is profitable or the individual remains
unavailable for other work.”26 This Court has expressly noted that “unemployment
is different from self-employment.”27 In Delaware, “[o]nce an individual engages
in a self-employed business or practice on a full-time basis . . . the individual is no
longer unemployed nor available for work, nor clearly is that individual ‘actively
seeking work’ other than the self-employment.”28
Claimant argues that Claimant misunderstood the Referee’s questions and
made the mistake of answering the Referee’s questions based on Claimant’s time
24 Workman v. Delaware Department of Labor, 2011 WL 3903793, at *3 (Del. Super.) (citing O’Brien v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 1993 WL 603363, at *3 (Del. Super.)). 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Miller v.
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
MUHAMMAD IRFAN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) UNEMPLOYEMENT INSURANCE ) C.A. No. N23A-05-009 MMJ APPEAL BOARD, ) ) Appellee. ) )
Submitted: February 1, 2024 Decided: March 25, 2024
Upon Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board AFFIRMED
Muhammad Irfan, Pro Se, Middletown, Delaware, Appellant. Matthew B. Frawley, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Delaware Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Victoria W. Counihan, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Delaware Division of Unemployment Insurance. JOHNSTON, J.
1 MEMORANDUM OPINION
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
In October 2018, Muhammad Irfan (“Claimant”) incorporated Mitech
Consultants, LLC, an S Corporation.1 Claimant is 100% owner of the business.2
Claimant has a Virginia license but is in the process of transferring the license to
Delaware.3 Claimant testified that he is an employee who used to receive a
paycheck from his corporation.4 Claimant states that he is looking for any kind of
work, but his priority is to get work through his corporation.5 There are no
employees other than himself.6 The nature of Claimant’s business is to provide
consulting services related to IT.7 Claimant had a client, but that client is no longer
with Claimant because the client was short on funding, leaving his company with
no clients and no source of revenue.8 Claimant testified that he is trying to get
clients for his company. He is spending eighty percent of his time trying to get a
1 Transcript of Referee’s Hearing at 7. 2 Id. at 15. 3 Id. at 16. 4 Id. at 6. 5 Id. at 10. 6 Id. at 15. 7 Id. at 13. 8 Id. at 11. 2 client through his company and twenty percent of his time looking for work
outside his company.9
Claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits in July 2022 and filed an
additional claim in December 2022 due to COVID. An appeals referee (“Referee”)
held a hearing on January 18, 2023. The Referee found that Claimant was self-
employed and thus ineligible for benefits.
Claimant appealed the Referee’s decision to the Unemployment Insurance
Appeal Board. The Board issued its decision on March 29, 2023. The Board found
Claimant to be a full-time self-employed individual. Claimant owned the company.
Claimant’s main priority was finding a client for his business. The Board
concluded that Claimant was neither unemployed nor available for work.
Claimant appealed the Board’s decision to this Court on May 30, 2023.
Claimant asserts that when interviewed by the Referee, Claimant misunderstood
the questions being asked to him.10 Claimant asserts that he answered the questions
asked by the Referee relating to when Claimant was living and working in
Virginia.11 Claimant admits that he told the Referee that he spent eighty percent of
his time trying to get a client through his company and twenty percent of his time
9 Id. at 19. 10 Claimant’s Opening Brief at 1. 11 Id. 3 looking for jobs outside of his company.12 However, Claimant asserts that was a
mistake because of his misunderstanding of the question.13 Since moving to
Delaware, Claimant asserts that he is unemployed and looking for work, not
splitting his time performing any kind of work for his company.14 Thus, Claimant
is requesting a re-hearing by the Referee and or the “DA”15 to set the facts
straight.16
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, the Superior
Court must determine if the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence in the record and free from legal error.17 Substantial evidence is “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.”18 The Court must review the record to determine if the evidence is
legally adequate to support the Board’s factual findings.19 The Court does not
“weigh evidence, determine questions of credibility or make its own factual
12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 2. 15 It is unclear who Claimant intends to identify as “DA.” 16 Claimant’s Opening Brief at 2. 17 Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 621 A.2d 340, 342 (Del. 1993). 18 Histed v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 621 A.2d 340, 342 (citing Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (1981)). 19 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965). 4 findings.”20 If the record lacks satisfactory proof in support of the Board’s finding
or decision, the Court may overturn the Board’s decision.21 On appeal, the Superior
Court reviews legal issues de novo.22
ANALYSIS
At issue in this case is whether Claimant is eligible for unemployment
benefits when Claimant has testified that he is an employee who owns his own
company and spends the majority of his time looking for clients for his company.
To be eligible for unemployment benefits, Claimant must be within the
definition of unemployed.23
Section 3302(17) of title 19 of the Delaware Code provides:
“Unemployment” exists and an individual is “unemployed” in any week during which the individual performs no services and with respect to which no wages are payable to the individual, or in any week of less than full-time work if the wages payable to the individual with respect to such week are less than the individual’s weekly benefit amount plus whichever is the greater of $10 or 50% of the individual’s weekly benefit amount. The Department shall prescribe regulations applicable to unemployed individuals making such distinctions in the procedures as to total unemployment, part-total unemployment, partial unemployment of individuals attached to their regular
20 Id. at 67. 21 Id. at 66–67. 22 Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159, 1161 (Del. 2009). 23 Spicer v. Spicer Unlimited, 2005 WL 914469, at *2 (Del. Super.). 5 jobs and other forms of short-time work as the Department deems necessary.
Delaware courts have ruled that self-employment acts as a bar to receiving
unemployment benefits in Delaware.24 The term “self-employment” has not been
specifically defined by the General Assembly or by Delaware courts.25 However,
this Court has interpreted “self-employment” as existing where “an individual has
made more than de minimis efforts on behalf of an operating business that he or
she owns, regardless of whether the business is profitable or the individual remains
unavailable for other work.”26 This Court has expressly noted that “unemployment
is different from self-employment.”27 In Delaware, “[o]nce an individual engages
in a self-employed business or practice on a full-time basis . . . the individual is no
longer unemployed nor available for work, nor clearly is that individual ‘actively
seeking work’ other than the self-employment.”28
Claimant argues that Claimant misunderstood the Referee’s questions and
made the mistake of answering the Referee’s questions based on Claimant’s time
24 Workman v. Delaware Department of Labor, 2011 WL 3903793, at *3 (Del. Super.) (citing O’Brien v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 1993 WL 603363, at *3 (Del. Super.)). 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Miller v. Herschmann, Inc., 2007 WL 4577373, at *2 (Del. Super.) (denying claimant benefits and concluding that the claimant was self-employed because claimant acknowledged that he operated his own business and attempted to make the business successful despite working less than full-time hours and earning no wages from the business). 28 Husband v. Environmental Design, LLC, 2012 WL 1413595, at *3 (Del. Super.). 6 in Virginia.29 Claimant asserts that he was laid off from his client on July 15,
2022.30 Claimant then applied for unemployment benefits but did not pursue those
benefits due to COVID.31 Claimant reapplied in December of 2022 but was denied
unemployment benefits by the Referee and the Board.32 Claimant admits to making
a mistake on the record.33 Claimant asserts that he is actually one hundred percent
looking for work and is not splitting hist time performing any kind of work for his
company.34 Claimant urges the Court to remand the Board’s decision for an
opportunity of a re-hearing before the Referee to clear up any misunderstandings.35
The Court does not have the authority to question the Board’s decision
unless there is substantial evidence to overturn the Board’s decision.36 In order for
this Court to overturn the Board’s decision, there must be evidence within the
record to prove lack of support for the Board’s decision. The record shows that the
Claimant was the owner of Mitech Consultants, LLC, was looking for any kind of
work, and was spending about eighty percent of his time trying to find work within
29 Claimant’s Opening Brief. 30 Id. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Robinson v. Delaware Professional Funeral Services, Inc., 2021 WL 4485017, at *1 (Del. Super.). 7 his company and about twenty percent of his time trying to find work outside of his
company.
This Court has recognized two situations where the claimant would be
considered unemployed within the meaning of 19 Del. C. § 3302(17) despite
working minimal hours per week.37 In this present case, Claimant is not in the first
situation because he is not wrapping up his business. Claimant’s company is still
operational. Second, Claimant is not a part of a “side-line” employment. When
asked if working for his company was a sideline job and if he was looking for
other work, Claimant replied that it was his priority to find a fulltime client and get
work through his company.38 Claimant’s situation does not fit into either
exception.
The Board properly found that Claimant was a full-time self-employed
individual. Although Claimant is no longer receiving paychecks, Claimant fits the
definition of self-employed, which bars recovery of unemployment benefits.
Claimant has put in more than a de minimis amount of effort into his company.
Claimant testified that his main priority was finding a client for his company.
37 See Bachman v. Bachman & Associates, 2010 WL 5551332 (Del. Super.) (determining the claimant unemployed even though he continued to devote two to three hours per week to wrap up the business of the corporation); see also O’Brien v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 1993 WL 603363, at 3 (Del. Super.) (acknowledging exceptions for “side-line” employment). 38 Transcript of Referee’s Hearing at 10; 17. 8 Claimant has spent eighty percent of his time looking for a client. The record also
shows that Claimant wrote on the self-employed business fact sheet from the
Department of Labor that Claimant devotes at least 40 hours per week to his
business. Therefore, this Court finds Claimant’s argument—that he misunderstood
the questions from the Referee—unpersuasive.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the
Board’s finding that Claimant is, in fact, a full-time self-employed individual, and
thus, ineligible for unemployment benefits. The Court finds that the Board’s
decision is free from legal error.
THEREFORE, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary M. Johnston The Honorable Mary M. Johnston