White v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: May 8, 2024
• Docket: N23A-08-004 PAW
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JALISA WHITE ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N23A-08-004 PAW ) UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) APPEAL BOARD ) ) Appellee. )

Submitted: February 2, 2024 Decided: May 8, 2024

Upon Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board;

AFFIRMED.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Jalisa White, Self-Represented Appellant.

Matthew B. Frawley, Esq., of the Delaware Department of Justice, Attorney for Appellee.

WINSTON, J. I. INTRODUCTION

This appeal stems from an Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s (the

“Board”) decision declining to accept Jalisa White’s appeal and affirming the

Appeals Referee’s (the “Referee”) decision that her appeal of the Claim Deputy’s

Determination was untimely. For reasons set forth below, the Board’s decision is

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY White filed for unemployment benefits with the Department of Labor after

being terminated from her employer, Positive Change Academy.1 According to her

benefits application, White was terminated because she received a verbal warning

for lateness and leaving early.2 On April 3, 2023, a Claims Deputy mailed a notice

of determination (the “Determination”) denying White’s claim for unemployment

benefits because the Department of Labor found her discharged with just cause.3

The Determination identified the employer as Positive Directions instead of Positive

Change Academy.4 The Determination also specified that it becomes final on April

13, 2023, unless a written appeal is filed.5 On April 14, 2023, White emailed the

1 R. at 7. 2 Id. 3 R. at 68. It is undisputed that White received the Determination. 4 Id. 5 Id.

2 Department of Labor “resending [her] appeal [because she had not] heard anything

since [she] spoke with [a Department of Labor representative]….”6 White asserted

the Department of Labor erroneously utilized the incorrect employer when deciding

her claim.7 On April 20, 2023, the same Claims Deputy mailed an additional notice

of determination (the “Second Determination”) to White.8 The Second

Determination found the Determination disqualified White from receiving benefits

and noted White filed her written appeal on April 14, 2023, one day after the

Determination became final and binding.9 The Second Determination also advised

that a hearing to address only the timeliness of White’s appeal would be scheduled.10

Subsequently, on May 25, 2023, the Department of Labor noticed White’s timeliness

appeal hearing for June 6, 2023 with the Referee.11

At the hearing, the Referee confirmed White’s mailing address.12 White

further testified she received the Determination and was aware of the April 13 appeal

deadline.13 When asked by the Referee whether she submitted anything in writing

prior to the deadline, White stated she appealed in-person on April 11, 2023.14

6 R. at 69. There is no attachment to White’s email. 7 Id. 8 R. at 63. It is undisputed that White received the Second Determination. 9 R. at 66. 10 Id. 11 R. at 62. 12 R. at 21:14-19. 13 R. at 25:5, 29:4-8, and 31:13-14. 14 R. at 31:21-23 and 33:22-34:5.

3 White, however, could not find a copy of her in-person appeal and attested she was

unaware the hearing related to timeliness only.15 Consequently, the Referee gave

White until the end of the day to provide proof of her in-person appeal,16 but no

evidence was submitted. The Referee then affirmed the Determination finding

White’s appeal untimely.17

White next appealed to the Board. The Board found no evidence that the

Department of Labor used the incorrect address when it mailed the Determination

creating a rebuttable presumption that White received the Determination.18 In

addition, the Board concluded that White’s appeal failed to provide any evidence of

severe circumstances preventing her from appealing the Determination before the

statutory deadline.19 Therefore, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to

accept White’s appeal and affirmed the Referee’s decision.20 In turn, White filed the

instant appeal to this Court.21

15 R. at 35:18-21 and 37:21-23. The Referee clarified the hearing was originally scheduled for a discharge appeal hearing instead of one solely addressing timeliness. R. at 36:20-37:10. This mistake was cured when the Department of Labor issued the May 25, 2023, hearing notice which indicated the “only testimony at [the] hearing will be the issue of the claimant’s timeliness of appeal.” R. at 62. 16 R. at 46:20-47:6. 17 R. at 15-17. 18 R. at 9. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 R. at 5.

4 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court’s review of decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board is limited to a determination of whether there was substantial evidence to

support the findings of the Board.22 Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence

that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.23 The

Court will not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its

own factual findings.24 If the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence

and is free from legal error, then the Board’s decision will be affirmed.25

A discretionary decision of the Board will be upheld absent an abuse of

discretion.26 An abuse of discretion occurs when the Board “acts arbitrarily or

capriciously” or “exceeds the bounds of reason in view of the circumstances and has

ignored recognized rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice.”27 The Court

reviews questions of law de novo to determine “whether the Board erred in

formulating or applying legal precepts.”28

22 City of Newark v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 802 A.2d 318, 323 (Del. Super. 2002). 23 Walker v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 2015 WL 1542034, at *1 (Del. Super. Mar. 12, 2015). 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Straley v. Advanced Staffing, Inc., 2009 WL 1228572, at *2 (Del. Super. Apr. 30, 2009), aff'd sub nom. Straley v. Advance Staffing, Inc., 984 A.2d 124 (Del. 2009). 27 Id. 28 Id.

5 IV. ANALYSIS

The Appeal is Untimely, and the Board Did Not Abuse its Discretion in Declining to Hear the Untimely Appeal

On appeal, White concedes she untimely appealed the Determination, but

argues the merits of the underlying Determination.29 In opposition, the Board

contends it did not abuse its discretion in denying White’s appeal request because

White failed to comply with the statutory deadline and the Department of Labor

committed no errors preventing her from filing a timely appeal.30 The Determination

specified the decision would become final unless appealed by April 13, 2023. White

did not appeal until April 14, 2023, after the appeal deadline passed. White concedes

her appeal was untimely.

Therefore, the sole issue before the Court is whether the Board abused its

discretion in declining to hear White’s untimely appeal. The Board did not. The

Board declined to accept White’s appeal because the Determination was properly

sent to White and White untimely appealed. Generally, the Board only exercises its

discretion to hear an untimely appeal where “administrative error on the part of the

Department of Labor deprived the claimant of the opportunity to file a timely appeal,

or in those cases where the interests of justice would not be served by inaction.”31

29 Op. Br. at 1. 30 Ans. Br. at 3-4. Although afforded an opportunity to reply to the Board’s opposition, White failed to submit a reply in support of her appeal. D.I. 15 and 16. 31 Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (Del. 1991).

6 The Board found no evidence either. The Court agrees and finds that the Board did

not abuse its discretion by refusing to hear White’s appeal despite its untimeliness.

V. CONCLUSION This Court’s review of the Board’s decision is limited. The Board declined to

hear White’s appeal on the grounds that the Determination was properly addressed

to White, no evidence of administrative error existed, and White presented no

evidence of severe circumstances preventing her from filing an appeal before the

statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Board’s decision declining to hear White’s

appeal is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Patricia A. Winston Patricia A. Winston, Judge