IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
BERTHA FREEMAN ) 
) 
Appellant ) 
) 
v. ) C.A. No. 03A-09-003 HDR 
) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE )
APPEAL BOARD AND )
MID-ATLANTIC SERVICES )
)
Appellees. )
Submitted: January 23, 2004 
Decided: April 26, 2004 
Bertha Freeman, Hartly, Delaware, pro se. 
Rosemary V. Everton, Seaford, Delaware, pro se, for Appellee Mid-Atlantic 
Services. 

O R D E R 

UPON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT 
INSURANCE APPE AL BOARD 
REVERSED AND REMANDED 
RIDGELY, President Judge 

O R D E R 

This 26th day of April 2004, upon consideration of the Appellant’ s brief and 
the record below, it appears that: 

(1) This is an appeal by Claimant, Bertha Freeman (" Freeman"), from a 
decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (" Board") terminating all 
her unemployment benefits. As denial of benefits was based upon improper 
interpretation of 19 Del. C. § 3302(17), the decision of the Board must be reversed. 

(2) On February 28, 2003, Freeman, now age 73, lost her par t-time 
job without good cause. She applied for and received unemployment benefits of 
$146.00 weekly. On May 19, 2003, F reeman had an interview for another par ttime 
job. Before her interview, Freeman called the Unemployment Office and 
inquired whether accepting this job would interfere with her unemployment benefits. 
She was told that the job would have to pay around $225. 00 per week in order to 
interfere with her curr ent benefits. Earnings above a certain amount would reduce 
benefits on a dollar for dollar basis. F reeman was aware that accepting the job 
would reduce benefits, but that she was required to find employment or lose benefits 
altogether.
 
(3) Freeman accepted the job, working 2. 5 hours a day, 5 days a 
week, at $7. 00 per hour, totaling $87.50 per week. Following Freeman’ s 
acceptance of the job, the Unemployment Office declared that she was no longer 
qualified as unemployed and cancelled her benefits. 

(4) Freeman appealed this decision to the Board. The Board 
determined that she was ineligible for benefits as defined by 19 Del. C. § 3302(17), 
after taking the new part-time job. 

(5) In an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal 
Board, this Court must determine whether the Board’ s conclusions are supported 
by substantial evidence and free from legal error. Substantial evidence means 
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 
conclusion. 

(6) In order to qualify for unemployment benefits a person must be 
unemployed and meet the eligibility requirements of 19 Del. C. § 3302(17). T his 
statute states: 

   " Unemployment" exists and an individual is " unemployed" in any week 
   during which the individual performs no services and with r espect 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 D epartment shall 
   prescribe regulations applicable to unemployed individuals making such 
   distinctions in the procedures as to the total unemployment, part-total 
   unemployment, partial unemployment of individuals attached to their regular 
   jobs and other for ms of short-term work as the Department deems necessary. 

(7) The pertinent part of this Statute reads, " 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." 

(8) Freeman’ s part-time weekly wage is $87. 50 and her weekly benefit 
is $146.00. Fifty percent of her weekly benefit is $73.00 which exceeds $10. 00. 

(9) Because Freeman’ s part-time wages ($87. 50) are less than her weekly 
benefit plus the greater of $10 or 50% of her weekly benefit (which totals $219.00 
in this case), Freeman qualifies as " unemployed" within the meaning of 19 Del. C. 
§ 3302(17). She is entitled to unemployment benefits of $58.50 per week which 
represents the difference between her par t-time wages and her weekly unemployment 
benefit. The Board erred as a matter of law when it upheld the decision to terminate 
her benefits. 

NOW THEREFORE, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board is 
REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent 
herewith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
President Judge 
ds 
4 

Freeman v. U. I.A.B., et al. 
03A-09-003 
April 26, 2004 
oc: Prothonotary 
xc: Order distribution