IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 


DESIREE BLACKWELL, 
Appellant, 
v. 
DELAWARE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, 
Appellees. 

Submitted: April 22, 2008 
Decided: June 19, 2008 

Upon Appeal From a Decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board. AFFIRMED. 


ORDER 
 

 Having reviewed the parties’ submissions in the appeal of a decision 
of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") affirming the 
decision of the Appeals Referee ("Referee"), affirming the decision of the 


Claims Deputy, and denying Desiree Blackwell’s appeal, the Court 
concludes as follows: 

 

1. Blackwell was employed by the Delaware Federal Credit Union 
from December 5, 2003 through June 11, 2007. Blackwell was employed as 
a teller. On June 11, 2007, Blackwell was terminated for excessive 
tardiness. 


2. On June 10, 2007, Blackwell filed an application for 
unemployment benefits. On July 3, 2007, the Delaware Department of 
Labor Claims Deputy ("Claims Deputy") found the Credit Union 
demonstrated that Blackwell was terminated for violating the policy on 
attendance and punctuality. Thus, benefits were denied by decision of the 
Claims Deputy. On July 20, 2007, Blackwell filed an appeal. The Referee 
affirmed the decision of the Claims Deputy. The Referee found that 
Blackwell was discharged from her work for just cause. 

3. On August 16, 2007, Blackwell filed an appeal with the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board found that Blackwell 
was discharged for just cause as a result of excessive attendance problems. 
The Board affirmed the findings of the Referee. 

4. On January, 30, 2008, Blackwell appealed the decision of the 
Board to this Court. On February 15, 2008, the Delaware Federal Credit 
Union filed an answering brief. On April 21, 2008, the Court sent Blackwell 
a Final Delinquent Brief Notice. Blackwell did not reply. Therefore, the 
Court will decide the issue on the papers that have been filed.1 

5. Blackwell’s Opening Brief recounts the incidents in which she 
believes she was unjustly penalized for being late to work. For example, 
Blackwell informs the Court that she was late because: her daughter was ill, 
her start time was adjusted, she got a flat tire and she stopped to give 
someone directions. 

6. The Credit Union argues that the Board committed no error of 
law and the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. 

7. The Delaware Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have 
emphasized the limited appellate review of the factual findings of an 
administrative agency. In reviewing the decisions of the agency, this Court 
must determine whether the findings and conclusions of the Board are free 
from legal error and supported by substantial evidence in the record.2 
Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.3 The appellate court does 
not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own 
factual findings.4 It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to 
support the agency’s factual findings.5 

8. Throughout the many hearings before various officers and the 
Board, the record of Blackwell’s excessive tardiness was well established. 
Blackwell does not deny she was late to work. Instead, Blackwell’s appeal 
would have this Court weigh the evidence and decide in her favor. This is 
not the role of the Court. Blackwell’s belief that her tardiness was excusable 
is not cause for reversal. 

 9. This Court finds the evidence is legally adequate to support the 
factual findings of the Board. In addition after reviewing the record, the 
Court finds the Board did not commit an error of law. 

 THEREFORE, the decision of the Board denying Claimant 
unemployment insurance benefits is hereby AFFIRMED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 ____________________________ 

The Honorable Mary M. Johnston