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


ANGELA D. HUSFELT, ) 
Appellant, ) 
v.
THE MARY CAMPBELL CENTER, ) 
and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
Appellees. ) 


Date Submitted: March 17, 2008 

Date Decided: June 25, 2008 

Upon Appeal from the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 


AFFIRMED 

O R D E R 

This 25th day of June 2008, upon consideration of the appeal of Angela D. 
Husfelt ("Husfelt"), from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 
(the "Board") denying her claim for unemployment benefits against her former 
employer, the Mary Campbell Center, Inc. ("MCC"), it appears to the Court that: 

1. Husfelt was employed as a certified activities assistant with MCC from 
September 9, 2005 until March 1, 2007, when she was terminated.1 MCC terminated 
Ms. Husfelt based on two separate incidences involving alleged falsification of her 
time card and intentional misconduct.2 On February 18, 2007, Husfelt arrived late to 
work and forgot to clock in.3 At 12:49 that afternoon, Ms. Husfelt called into the 
MCC and asked another MCC employee to clock in for her. The employee did so and 
the time card reflected a 12:49 p.m. "clock in time" for Ms. Husfelt. At the end of that 
day, Ms. Husfelt asked another MCC employee to cross out the 12:49 p.m. and insert 
10:00 a.m. as her "clock-in time."4 The other employee complied and altered the time 
card. 

2. On February 24, 2007, Ms. Husfelt transported MCC residents, staff and 
volunteers in an MCC vehicle to Atlantic City. While en route, Ms. Husfelt 
encountered a traffic control officer at an intersection. The officer instructed Ms. 
Husfelt to turn, but Ms. Husfelt refused and called the officer a "skank."5 Ms. Husfelt 
had been disciplined by MCC for two similar incidents in 2006.6 During one incident, 
Ms. Husfelt was rude and disrespectful to a resident. During the other incident, Ms. 
Husfelt called a fellow MCC employee a "bitch."7 For each of the 2006 incidents, Ms. 
Husfelt received written notice of the disciplinary action taken.8 Ms. Husfelt signed 
the incident report regarding her behavior toward the resident, but refused to sign the 
report concerning the incident with the fellow employee.9 

3. At the hearing before the Board, Debra Franklin ("Ms. Franklin"), the 
MCC representative, testified that Ms. Husfelt was interviewed regarding the two 
recent instances that led to her termination and asked for her input.10 According to 
Ms. Franklin, Ms. Husfelt was suspended pending the investigation into the 
incidents.11 Based upon the facts gathered during the investigation and the seriousness 
of the violations, the MCC decided to terminate Ms. Husfelt.12 

4. Ms. Husfelt filed for unemployment compensation with the Delaware 
Department of Labor ("DOL") on March 3, 2007.13 On April 4, 2007, a Claims 
Deputy for the DOL determined that the MCC terminated Ms. Husfelt for wanton and 
willful misconduct constituting just cause.14 Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(2), this 
finding disqualified Ms. Husfelt from receiving unemployment compensation.15 

5. On April 13, 2007, Ms. Husfelt appealed the Claims Deputy’s decision 
to the Appeals Referee. After a hearing, the Appeals Referee issued his decision on 
May 23, 2007, reversing the Claims Deputy’s determination that Ms. Husfelt was 
terminated for just cause. The Referee explained in her decision that while Ms. 
Husfelt’s "actions were certainly inappropriate in both incidents and she certainly may 
have exercised poor judgment," her conduct did not "rise to the level of willful or 
wanton misconduct."16 As a result, the Appeals Referee concluded that Ms. Husfelt 
was entitled to unemployment compensation.17 

6. On June 1, 2007, the MCC appealed the Referee’s decision to the Board 
and a hearing was held on June 27, 2007. The Board issued its decision on July 6, 
2007, reversing the Referee’s decision upon concluding that Ms. Husfelt’s actions 
gave the MCC just cause for termination because the misconduct was willful and 
wanton. In making its determination, the Board applied a two part test that examines 
whether or not an employee conduct policy existed and, secondly, whether the 
employee was aware of the policy.18 In support of its decision, the Board relied upon 
the MCC’s employee handbook, which indicates that altering timecards or records and 
disorderly/antagonistic conduct on company premises are deemed policy violations 
and may result in immediate termination.19 The Board also relied upon proof that Ms. 
Husfelt had acknowledged her understanding of these conditions of employment, as 
indicated by her signature on an employee intake form.20 Additionally, the Board 
considered the previous disciplinary proceedings in which Ms. Husfelt had been 
involved as further evidence of her knowledge of company policies and procedures. 
Finally, the Board considered Ms Husfelt’s testimony at the hearing, during which she 
admitted to altering her time card and to calling the traffic officer a "skank" in the 
presence of MCC residents.21 

7. On appeal to this Court, Ms. Husfelt challenges the MCC’s decision to 
terminate her and argues that the reasons MCC provided for her termination were 
"unjust."22 The MCC responds that the Board’s decision to deny Ms. Husfelt 
unemployment compensation was legally correct and supported by substantial 
evidence. 

8. This Court repeatedly has emphasized the limited extent of its appellate 
review of administrative determinations. The Court’s review is confined to ensuring 
that the hearing officer made no errors of law and determining whether "substantial 
evidence" supports the hearing officer’s factual findings.23 Questions of law that arise 
from the hearing officer’s decision are subject to de novo review, pursuant to Superior 
Court Civil Rule 3(c), which requires the Court to determine whether the hearing 
officer erred in formulating or applying legal precepts.24 Substantial evidence means 
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 
conclusion."25 It is "more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of the 
evidence."26 The "substantial evidence" standard of review contemplates a significant 
degree of deference to the hearing officer’s factual conclusions and its application of 
those conclusions to the appropriate legal standards.27 In its review, the Court will 
consider the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below.28 

9. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314, an employee is disqualified from receiving 
unemployment compensation if she is discharged for just cause. Just cause is defined 
as "a willful or wanton act or pattern of conduct in violation of the employer’s 
interest, the employee’s duties, or the employee’s expected standard of conduct."29 
"Willful and wanton conduct is that which is evidenced by either conscious action, or 
reckless indifference leading to a deviation from established and acceptable workplace 
performance."30 There is no requirement that the conduct be performed with bad 
motive or malice.31 

10. The record before the Board contained the "Standards of Conduct" for 
MCC employees as laid out in the employee manual. According to the manual, 
employees "have a responsibility to the Center, the residents, and your fellow 
employees to adhere to certain rules of behavior and conduct."32 The manual makes 
clear that a violation of these rules of behavior could result in immediate dismissal 
without warning.33 Among these rules was one that prohibited an employee from 
altering or causing someone to alter the employee’s timecard.34 Another rule forbade 
obscene or abusive language and disorderly or antagonistic conduct on company 
premises. A document presented as evidence to the Board contained Ms. Husfelt’s 
signature, acknowledging her receipt of the manual. The previous disciplinary 
actions taken against Ms. Husfelt also indicated her knowledge and understanding of 
the standard of conduct expected of her during her employment with the MCC. 
Additionally, Ms. Husfelt admitted to her behavior in connection with each incident 
that led to her termination.35 

11. Based on the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the Board applied the 
correct legal standards and that its decision is supported by substantial evidence. 
Accordingly, the decision of the Board denying Ms. Husfelt unemployment 
compensation must be AFFIRMED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.