IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
CALDWELL STAFFING SERVICES, ) 
)
Employer-Appellant, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 02A-07-003 JRS 
) 
SHANTELL L. WILLINGHAM, ) 
) 
Employee-Appellee, ) 
) 
and ) 
) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
)
Appellee. )
Submitted: November 13, 2002 
Decided: February 6, 2003 
Appeal From the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board --REMANDED. 

O R D E R 

This 6th day of February, 2003, upon consideration of the appeal of Caldwell 
Staffing Services ("Caldwell Staffing") from the decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board (the "Board"), dated June 23, 2002, granting Shantell 
Willingham’s application for benefits, it appears to the Court that: 

1. Caldwell Staffing, a temporary employment agency, employed Ms. 
Willingham from January 2001 through December 2001. Ms. Willingham was 
assigned to work at Student Financial Corporation ("SFC"). On December 15, 2001, 
a newly-hired SFC employee arrived late to work, and she was upset and 
apprehensive about the consequences of being late. Ms. Willingham claims that she 
attempted to console the other employee; she denies making derogatory comments 
about management during this discussion. A supervisor at SFC, Fernando Feliciano 
("Mr. Feliciano"), testified that he overheard Ms. Willingham speaking negatively 
about SFC management. Mr. Feliciano and another supervisor then brought Ms. 
Willingham into a separate conference room and attempted to counsel her. Mr. 
Feliciano claimed that Ms. Willingham became angry and loud and that she was told 
to lower her voice twice. She refused both times, and the supervisors sent her home. 
She was effectively terminated thereafter. 

(note: Ms. Willingham remained on the employee list of Caldwell Staffing, but she did not receive 
a new assignment, even though she called every available week. Neither party contested the Board’s 
finding that she was fired. )

2. Ms. Willingham filed for unemployment insurance benefits on December 
30, 2001. The Claims Deputy awarded her benefits because Caldwell Staffing had 
not proven it had "just cause" to terminate Ms. Willingham. The Appeals Referee 
reversed the Claims Deputy based on Mr. Feliciano’s description of Ms. 
Willingham’s misconduct. In turn, the Board reversed the Appeals Referee, 
concluding that Ms. Willingham’s testimony was more persuasive. 

3. Caldwell Staffing has raised several arguments on appeal. First, it alleges 
when James Randall ("Mr. Randall"), the President of Caldwell Staffing, was denied 
the opportunity to cross examine Ms. Willingham, Caldwell Staffing was denied due 
process of law. Caldwell Staffing has submitted an affidavit from Mr. Randall in 
which he avers that a Board representative told him off the record that he could not 
cross-examine Ms. Willingham. All of the parties admit that, beyond Mr. Randall’s 
affidavit, there is no evidence in the record that the Board’s representative made this 
statement. Second, Caldwell Staffing contends that the Board’s finding that Ms. 
Willingham was discharged without "just cause" is not supported by substantial 
evidence. Finally, Caldwell Staffing argues that the Board erred in awarding Ms. 
Willingham benefits because: 1) the Board denied Caldwell Staffing’s opportunity 
to participate meaningfully in the hearing by disallowing cross examination of Ms. 
Willingham; 2) the Board misapplied the law regarding insubordination as "just 
cause" for termination; and 3) the Board accepted Ms. Willingham’s "untested 
version of the events" without considering the inconsistencies in her statements. 

4. The Court’s review of the Board’s decision is limited to the record 
submitted by the Board. The Court cannot make additional factual determinations 
or assess the witnesses’ credibility. Rather, the Court’s inquiry is limited to whether 
the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the 
Board erred in reaching its legal conclusions.

5. The Court does not have before it an adequate record to review Caldwell 
Staffing’s due process argument. A threshold factual issue remains unresolved: 
whether the Board’s representative denied Mr. Randall the opportunity to cross 
examine. To prove the point, Caldwell Staffing has submitted Mr. Randall’s 
affidavit and directed the Court to another case, Caldwell Staffing Services v. 
Ramrattan, where the court observed that the Board had adopted a policy which 
prohibits pro se employers from cross examining witnesses at Board hearings.7 
While Ramrattan suggests that restricted cross examination by pro se employers may 
be an ongoing Board policy, the Court cannot conclude on the basis of a procedure 
in another case that the Board employed that same procedure here. 

6. Because the factual record is incomplete and the Court is prohibited from 
making additional factual determinations, the Court must remand this case to the 
Board.8 The Board shall complete the record by deciding whether a representative 
of the Board told Mr. Randall that he could not cross examine Ms. Willingham. In 
this regard, the Board should receive verified statements from all of its 
representatives involved in the hearing addressing whether Mr. Randall was advised 
that he could not cross examine witnesses during the hearing. Factual findings on 
remand should then be prepared in writing and submitted to th e Court within fortyfive 
(45) days of this Order. 

7. Based on the foregoing, the Court REMANDS this case to the Board to 
complete the record in accordance with the Court’s instructions above. 
62003 WL 194734 (Del. Super.). 


IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Judge Joseph R. Slights, III 
Original to the Prothonotary 
cc: Robert F. Stewart, Jr., Esquire 
Susan E. Flood, Esquire 
Stephani Ballard, Esquire