SUPERIOR COURT 
OF THE 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
T. HENLEY GRAVES SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE 
RESIDENT JUDGE ONE THE CIRCLE, SUITE 2 
GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 

April 20, 2005 

Ms. Jan A. Hyatt 
6 Multiflora Drive 
Harbeson, DE 19951 
Michael Weidinger, Esquire 
Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, LLP 
P.O. Box 2306 
Wilmington, DE 19899 

RE: Hyatt v. The Mills Corporation and Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 
C.A. No. 04A-11-005 (THG) 

Date Submitted: February 23, 2005 

Dear Counsel and Ms. Hyatt: 

This is the Court’s decision on Petitioner Jan A. Hyatt’s (hereinafter “Petitioner”) appeal 
from the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (hereinafter “the Board”). The Board’s 
decision denied her unemployment insurance benefits in connection with her dismissal from the 
Mills Corporation (hereinafter “Mills”). For the following reasons, the Board’s decision is 

AFFIRMED. 

Petitioner began employment with Mills when the company acquired the Dover Mall 
facility on February 1, 2003. As the designated marketing director, Petitioner was charged with 
developing and directing marketing plans and programs to promote sales at the Dover Mall. At 
the commencement of her employment with Mills, Petitioner received an employee handbook
detailing Mills company policies and procedures. She later received a copy of the Code of 
Business Conduct and Ethics. 

On March 16, 2004, the Regional Human Resources Manager received allegations that 
Petitioner had submitted false expense reports and engaged in improper payment practices. An 
investigation revealed several infractions of company policy including: submitting false or 
erroneous expense reports, failing to follow company policy in hiring, paying and employing 
interns in contravention of company policy, submitting cellular phone bills for company 
reimbursement with excessive overages due to personal phone usage rather than business related 
calls, and failing to follow proper payment procedures for certain landscaping work completed at 
the mall. After an investigation of these allegations, Petitioner was asked to meet with the 
Regional Human Resources Manager on May 3, 2004. At this meeting, the Regional HR 
Manager inquired into and discussed all the allegations with Petitioner and ultimately discharged 
her based on the investigation. 

On May 9, 2004, Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Delaware 
Department of Labor (hereinafter “DOL”). On June 4, 2004, the Claims Deputy for the DOL 
found that Petitioner was terminated with “just cause” and was therefore disqualified from 
receiving unemployment benefits.1 The Claims Deputy found several of Petitioner’s actions to
constitute just cause for dismissal, specifically citing her inappropriate handling of intern 
employment and payment. Petitioner appealed the Claims Deputy’s decision. 

An Appeals Referee held a hearing on July 12, 2004 to review the matter. Petitioner was 
present at the meeting and a representative of Mills participated by telephone. On August 13, 
2004, the Appeals Referee issued a decision affirming the Claims Deputy’s refusal of 
unemployment insurance benefits. The Appeals referee found that Petitioner’s payment of 
landscape workers in cash, without deducting taxes, constituted willful and wanton misconduct 
on her part. That action was found to be a violation of her employer’s interests as well as a 
violation of state and federal law. The Appeals Referee found that Petitioner was aware of the 
Mills’ payment policies, with which she did not comply. The Referee also found that Petitioner 
was aware of Mills’ policies as to the employment and non-payment of interns, but chose not to 
comply with those guidelines. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Delaware Unemployment 
Insurance Appeals Board. 

A hearing before the Board took place on October 6, 2004. Petitioner testified before the 
Board and presented the testimony of two witnesses. In her testimony, Petitioner acknowledged 
and admitted various allegations made by Mills, but defended the actions as consistent with the 
policies and procedures she followed prior to Mills’ acquisition of the Dover Mall. 
A final decision was rendered on November 12, 2004, affirming the lower authorities’ 
decisions. The Appeals Board found willful and wanton misconduct, constituting just cause for 
dismissal, in Petitioner’s use and compensation of interns in contravention to company policy 
and cash payment of employees employed by a third party vendor. Unemployment benefits were
denied. Petitioner appealed the Board’s decision to the Superior Court on November 18, 2004. 

When addressing matters on appeal from the Board, the Superior Court is confined to a 
narrow standard.2 The Court does not serve as a trier of fact to determine the credibility of 
certain testimony or to weigh evidence.3 Instead, when the Board adopts the findings of the 
Appeals Referee, the reviewing court is to depend on the referee's findings.4 The Court’s 
principal function is to determine whether the findings of the Board are supported by substantial 
evidence and to reverse clear errors of law.5 The Court’s role is therefore a very limited one. 
In disputes involving an employee’s right to unemployment insurance benefits, the 
employer has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that the employee was 
dismissed for “just cause.”6 Just cause is defined as a “willful or wanton act or pattern of 
conduct in violation of the employer’s interest, the employer’s duties, or the employee’s expected 
standard of conduct.”7 

Each of the lower authorities to review this case found sufficient evidence of willful 
and wanton misconduct to justify Petitioner’s termination for just cause. Petitioner appealed to 
this Court, citing the fact that the Appeals Referee did not find sufficient evidence to deny her
unemployment benefits. Specifically, Petitioner claims that the only cited reason for her 
termination was the falsification of documents, which she claims was discounted by the Appeals 
Referee.

The Board did not find sufficient evidence of willful or wanton misconduct on the part of 
Petitioner with regard to her submission of false expense reports and excessive cell phone bills 
for reimbursement. However, I find that both the Appeals Referee and the Board denied 
unemployment insurance benefits to Petitioner correctly based on at least two other instances of 
misconduct, which provided sufficient evidence of just cause to warrant the denial of 
unemployment benefits. 

The Appeals Board and Referee found that Petitioner willfully and wantonly violated 
Mills’ policies with regard to the use and compensation of college interns, despite the fact that 
she was repeatedly informed of the company’s policies. The Board found evidence that 
Petitioner willfully paid two interns through a vendor despite being told that interns were not to 
be paid, but were only to receive course credit for work completed at the mall. Moreover, email 
communications from the Regional HR Manager instructed Petitioner that paperwork on each 
intern would need to be submitted to the regional office before they began to work. Despite this 
instruction, Petitioner allowed the interns to work and paid them in cash. Petitioner ignored the 
policies and procedures that were explained to her repeatedly by the Regional HR Manager. 

The Referee and Board also found that Petitioner violated company policy, as well as 
state and federal laws in her decision to compensate landscape employees in cash without 
deducting taxes. Petitioner disavows any wrongdoing, and instead claims that the third-party 
vendor who hired the workers were responsible for deducting taxes and completing 1099 forms. 

However, the fact that Petitioner paid these employees in cash, alone, constitutes a violation of 
company policy and the Ethics Code that Petitioner signed in 2004. Moreover, the fact that she 
paid the employees in cash, without first verifying that their payment complied with state and 
federal tax laws, is sufficient to find just cause in her dismissal. 
I agree with the Board’s decision to deny Petitioner unemployment benefits. The 
findings of the Referee and the Board constitute substantial evidence of just cause for Petitioner’s 
dismissal. The Board’s findings are free of legal error. Therefore, pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314, 
Petitioner is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. For the foregoing reasons, the 

Board’s decision is AFFIRMED. 

Very truly yours, 
T. Henley Graves 
THG/jfg 
oc: Prothonotary 
cc: Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board