IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
TROY A. FORAKER, ) 
) 
Claimant-Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) C.A. No. 01A-01-010 
) 
DIAMOND STATE RECYCLING, ) 
) 
Employer-Appellee. ) 
Upon Appeal from the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board’s determination. 
AFFIRMED. 
Submitted: July 12, 2001 
Decided: August 17, 2001 

O R D E R 

This 17th day of August, 2001, upon consideration of the appeal of Troy 
Foraker ("Claimant") from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal 
Board (the "Board") dated January 5, 2001, rejecting his application for benefits, the 
parties’ briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 

1. Diamond State Recycling ("Diamond State") employed Claimant as a 
driver to haul scrap metal throughout the Wilmington, Delaware area. During the 
course of that employment, Claimant was frequently assigned to a specific truck 
which, over time, apparently experienced mechanical difficulties which made it 
difficult for Claimant to complete his assigned tasks.1 On September 25, 2000, 
Claimant was in the process of hauling materials to and from a scrap yard in 
Claymont, Delaware, when the truck again began to malfunction causing Claimant to 
be slower than another driver assigned the identical task. At some point, Claimant 
was contacted by Scott Sherr ("Sherr"), Diamond State’s owner and operator, by way 
of a two-way radio system to address concerns regarding Claimant’s diminished 
productivity. Claimant demonstrated an irascible disposition which eventually led to 
Sherr’s instruction that he return the truck to Diamond State and retire for the day. 
Upon his return to Diamond State, Claimant attempted to discuss the situation with 
Sherr further rather than going home as instructed. Claimant aggressively continued 
to pursue the matter even though Sherr advised Claimant that he did not want to 
discuss the issue at that time. Claimant returned the next morning at which time Sherr 
terminated his employment. 

The mechanical difficulties involved the "balancing" of the truck. According to Claimant, 
the truck was not balanced properly, which made it difficult to unload its contents in a safe manner. 

2. Claimant sought unemployment benefits following his termination. On 
October 17, 2000, the Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment 
Insurance issued its "Notice of Determination." The Division, after determining that 
Claimant exhibited "verbally abusive" behavior and "insubordination" during the 
September 25 incident, rejected Claimant’s application for unemployment benefits.2 
This rejection of benefits was based on the statutory mandate that "[a]n individual 
shall be disqualified for [unemployment compensation] benefits: . . . (2) [f]or the week 
in which the individual was discharged from the individual’s work for just cause in 
connection with the individual’s work and for each week thereafter . . . ." 

3. Claimant appealed the Division’s determination, and the matter was 
assigned to an Appeals Referee. The Referee presided over a hearing held on 
November 14, 2000, where both Claimant and Sherr testified. The Referee found that 
"claimant admitted to a hot headed spontaneous response [to Sherr’s inquiries on 
September 25 and that he] . . . was then advised to go home for the day . . . [but 
nevertheless] continued to argue [with Sherr]."4 In light of these findings, the Referee 
affirmed the previous determination that Claimant was terminated for "just cause" 
under 19 Del. C. § 3315(2), reasoning that: 

   [while] an employee can certainly argue with his employer, once that 
   employee is advised to go home for that reason and come back the next 
   day, but instead continues to argue, this amounts to crossing the line as 
   tantamount to insubordination. Such conduct cannot be tolerated in the 
   workplace as it is demeaning of the employer/employee relationship and 
   impairs the orderly and efficient operation of one’s business.

4. Claimant appealed the Referee’s decision to the Board and a hearing was 
conducted on January 3, 2001. Claimant again testified at the hearing about the 
truck’s safety issues and the reasons for his outburst. The Board, however, affirmed 
and adopted the Referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.6 Claimant has 
appealed that determination to this Court. 

5. In reviewing the decisions and actions of an administrative agency such 
as the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, this Court’s role "is limited to 
determining whether the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial 
evidence and whether the Board’s decision is free from legal error."7 The Court must 
refuse to "‘weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own 
factual findings,’" and instead must limit its review of the determination below to 
"whether the evidence is legally adequate to support the Board’s factual findings."8 
The Court’s function here, then, is to determine whether the Board’s determination 
that the claimant was terminated for "just cause" is supported by substantial evidence 
and an error-free application of the law.9 

6. The Court’s review of the Board’s factual findings clearly reveals that 
they were supported by substantial evidence which, in this case, took the form of the 
testimony of Claimant and Sherr. This testimony established that Claimant 
deliberately refused to follow a specific order from Sherr and, additionally, that he 
strenuously argued about the situation with Sherr despite instructions to go home for 
the day. Both the Referee and the Board concluded as much. The testimony 
constitutes more than substantial evidence that Claimant was "verbally abusive" and 
"insubordinat[e]." 

7. The Court must now assess whether the specific factual findings made 
below support the determination that Claimant was terminated for "just cause."12 In 
the context of 19 Del. C. § 3315(2), "just cause" is defined as "a willful or wanton 
act13 in violation of either the employer’s interest, or of the employee’s duties, or of 
the employee’s expected standard of conduct."14 This definition may be satisfied 
through a "single instance of insubordination."15 

8. Claimant, a pro se litigant, specifically does not address the legal 
standards of review or whether his behavior constituted "just cause" for his 
termination under the applicable definition. Claimant’s arguments focus exclusively 
on his attempts to explain the reasons for his outburst and the events and 
circumstances that followed. As already determined, however, the record clearly 
supports the classification of Claimant’s conduct as insubordinate and verbally 
abusive. Moreover, the factual findings below are plainly sufficient to support the 
determination that Claimant’s insubordination and verbally abusive behavior provided 
Sherr and Diamond State with "just cause" for the termination of Claimant’s 
employment. The Court agrees with the Appeal Referee’s conclusion that 
insubordination "cannot be tolerated in the workplace as it is demeaning of the 
employer/employee relationship and impairs the orderly and efficient operation of 
one’s business." 

9. The case law which examines the issue of "just cause" supports the 
Board’s determination. Courts of this state frequently have determined that 
insubordinate behavior exhibited by an employee will give rise to "just cause" for 
termination, and the Division of Unemployment Insurance and this Court have held 
that such is a disqualifying event under the statutory scheme providing for 
unemployment benefits.18 This Court has repeatedly stated that "‘a discharge for 
insubordination may constitute ‘just cause’ provided the insubordination consists of 
a willful refusal to follow the reasonable directions or instructions of the employer.’"19 
In the context of this case, after the argument with Sherr, Claimant specifically was 
instructed to park his truck and go home. Despite this specific instruction, upon his 
return to the yard, Claimant continued to pursue his gripe with Sherr in a disrespectful 
and disruptive tone. An employee’s refusal to follow specific instructions or orders 
from a superior is clearly "just cause" for termination.20 Consequently, the conclusion 
that Claimant’s failure to obey a direct order from Sherr constituted "just cause" for 
his termination and disqualification from the receipt of benefits was not legal error. 

10. The Board’s conclusion that Claimant’s behavior was verbally abusive 
and insubordinate was plainly supported by substantial evidence of record. Further, 
the legal conclusions based on those factual findings was free from legal error. 
Accordingly, the decision of the Board should be, and is hereby, AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Judge Joseph R. Slights, III 
Original to Prothonotary 
cc: Troy A. Foraker 
Edward B. Rosenthal, Esq. 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board