SUPERIOR COURT of the STATE OF DELAWARE
Susan C. Del Pesco JUDGE
NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE
500 North King Street
Suite 10400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 255-0659 Facsimile: (302) 255-2273
Submitted: September 24, 2004
Decided: January 3, 2005 Victoria Granison 36 Warder Avenue New Castle, DE 19720
Todd C. Schiltz, Esquire Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP
1100 N. Market Street, Suite 1001 Wilmington, DE 19801
Mary Page Bailey, Esquire Department of Justice Carvel State Building
820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Victoria Granison, Appellant-Claimant Below v. Roizman & Company, AppelleeEmployer Below and
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board - Civil Action No. 04A-02-006 SCD Upon appeal from the
decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying certain unemployment benefits--AFFIRMED
Dear Counsel:
Claimant Victoria Granison ("Granison") was terminated from her employment at Roizman and Company
("Roizman") on or about October 7, 2003. Shortly thereafter, Granison filed an application for
benefits with the Unemployment Insurance Division. By Notice of Determination dated October 24,
2003, Granison was informed that she was disqualified for benefits because she was discharged
for cause.
Granison appealed the determination. A hearing was held on November 10, 2003, with both parties
presenting their cases. The Appeals Referee's affirmed the decision disqualifying Granison
for receipt of benefits, holding that Granison was discharged for just cause, insubordination.
Granison appealed the Referee's Decision to the Appeal Board. A hearing was held January 7, 2004,
before a four-member panel of the Board of Review. After consideration of the evidence, two
members of the Board agreed with the Referee's decision and two members disagreed.2 When there
is a tie, the immediately preceding administrative decision controls.3 The result is that the
Referee's Decision of November 12, 2003, finding Granison was discharged for just cause, was
affirmed. On February 25, 2004, Granison filed this appeal.
Granison filed a paper which this Court considers her opening brief on May 19, 2004. Roizman
filed a response July 15, 2004. No a reply brief has been filed.
The facts as found by the Referee are as follows.
Granison worked for Roizman as a program coordinator at Neighborhood Network Center
("NNC") from August 18, 2003, until October 7, 2003. During her period of employment,
Granison demonstrated a "continuing pattern in matters small and large of insubordination."
Granison ignored her supervisor's directives relating to a volunteer who appeared to be
under the influence of drugs.5 In derogation of her supervisor's orders, Granison did
not tell the volunteer she could no longer volunteer and Granison did not refer the volunteer
to a drug program.6 On at least two occasions, Granison refused to provide the overtime
hours she had worked when requested to do so by her supervisor.7 As a result of her pattern
of insubordinate behavior, Granison was discharged from her work for cause in connection
with her work.
On appeal, Granison argues factual matters. She claims that the accusations of misconduct
are false. She says she resolved the situation with the volunteer whom she later determined
was not under the influence of drugs. She claims there was no process for referring a
volunteer for service. She believes she handled the situation with the volunteer appropriately,
based on NNC's objective of preparing residents to enter the workforce. She further argues that
when her supervisor requested her overtime hours, she responded that she did not want to be
compensated and was donating the hours to benefit the residents. She also contends that the
NNC director was verbally and physically aggressive towards her during her termination.
Granison argues her termination was unwarranted and she is, therefore, entitled to benefits.
Roizman counters that there is substantial evidence to support the Referee's decision that
there was just cause for terminating Granison's employment. The Referee acknowledged that
there were areas of conflict in the testimony, but ultimately found the employer's testimony
regarding Granison's conduct to be more credible. Roizman points out that Delaware courts
have consistently held that insubordination constitutes just cause for termination.8
This Court has limited appellate review of a decision from an administrative agency. On 6 Id.
appeal, this Court determines whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial
evidence and is free from legal error.9 Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support a conclusion.10 This Court
does not act as the trier of fact nor does it have authority to weigh the evidence, weigh
issues of credibility, or make factual conclusions.11 Therefore, given an agency's
specialized competence, this Court merely reviews whether the findings made by that
agency are adequately supported by the evidence.12
I find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the Referee's finding that
Granison was insubordinate and, that Roizman had just cause for terminating her employment.
This is an issue of the credibility of the witnesses, and this Court does not have authority to
weigh issues of credibility.13 A finding of insubordination is sufficient substantial evidence
to support a denial of unemployment compensation benefits.14
I find the Referee's Decision is supported by substantial evidence. As the Board did not
either affirm or reverse the Referee's Decision, the Referee's Decision controls.15
The Decision of the Referee is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
Susan C. Del Pesco Original to Prothonotary xc: Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board