IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY 
JAMES A. INGRAM, ) 
) C.A. No. 01A-03-004 JTV 
Appellant, ) 
) 
) 
) 
BARRETTS BUSINESS SERVICE, ) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEALS BOARD, ) 
) 
Appellees. ) 
) 
Submitted: July 16, 2001 
Decided: October 30, 2001 
James A. Ingram, Pro Se. 
Bradley S. Eaby, Esq., Dover, Delaware. Attorney for Appellee Barretts. 
Upon Consideration of Appellant’s Appeal From 
Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 
AFFIRMED 
VAUGHN, Resident Judge 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, and the record in this case, it appears 
that: 

1. The appellant, James A. Ingram ("Ingram" or "claimant"), appeals from a 
decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") denying his 
application for unemployment benefits. The Board determined that Mr. Ingram had 
voluntarily terminated his employment without just cause. 

2. The facts, which appear to be largely undisputed, are the following. In May 
2000 Ingram got a job opportunity with Paulish’s Landscaping and Lawn Care 
("Paulish’s"). The owner of Paulish’s, however, told him that his employment would 
have to be worked through Barrett’s Business Service ("Barrett’s"), an employment 
agency. This was done, and Barrett’s became the actual employer. Due to its seasonal 
nature, the work at Paulish’s came to an end on October 6, 2000. In the days that 
followed, Barrett’s offered Ingram a one day job and also a job at Playtex, a company 
with a facility in Dover. When they offered him the one day job, he said he was 
looking for work at 40 hours a week. They then offered the Playtex job. He refused 
the job at Playtex because it offered only $6.50 an hour. His rationale was that he had 
previously worked at Playtex for $10 an hour, and he was not inclined to go back "to 
Playtex making less money doing the same job."1 On October 25, 2000, Ingram 
became incarcerated on some unrelated matter. He was released on December 21, 
2000. Upon his release, he did not return to Barrett and had no further contact with 
that company. 

3. In support of his appeal, Ingram contends that he was treated differently 
from two other Paulish workers who were not offered other employment by Barrett’s 
but who did receive unemployment benefits. He also contends that he was approved 
for a seasonal layoff in October 2000, and that since Paulish’s would not resume work 
until the spring, he should receive unemployment benefits for that interim period from 
October to the spring. He also contends that the Board did not allow him sufficient 
time to present all his testimony. 

4. On appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal 
Board, the scope of the court’s review is limited to a determination of whether the 
Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error.2 
Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 
as adequate to support a conclusion.3 The appellate court does not weigh the 
evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings.4 In 
other words, the Board, not the court, determines the credibility of the witnesses, the 
weight to give their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn therefrom.5 

5. The Board concluded that Ingram had voluntarily terminated his 
employment without just cause because he failed to contact Barrett’s to see whether 
work was available when he got out of jail. The Board’s decision affirmed the 
decision of the Appeal’s Referee, who also concluded that the claimant had 
voluntarily left his work without good cause. 

6. An individual is disqualified from receiving benefits if he or she voluntarily 
quits employment without good cause.6 Good cause for quitting a job has been 
defined as a reason which "would justify one in voluntarily leaving the ranks of the 
employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed."7 The burden is on the claimant 
employee to show there was good cause for leaving and that he or she is entitled to the 
unemployment benefits.8 Here, although the claimant’s work at Paulish’s came to a 
seasonal end, the proper focus is on his relationship with his actual employer, 
Barrett’s. The record shows that he turned down two jobs, one for one day and one 
for full time at Playtex. His expressed reasons for doing so do not constitute good 
cause for declining that employment. He then failed to re-contact Barrett’s after his 
release from prison. Under these circumstances, the Board’s decision is clearly 
supported by substantial evidence. 

7. As to his remaining contentions, Ingram’s claim that he was treated 
differently than two other employees must be rejected. His case must be judged on 
its own merits, not compared with other cases which are not a part of this record. As 
to his claim that the Board did not allow him to present all of his testimony or allow 
him adequate time for his hearing, I have reviewed the transcript of the hearing before 
the Board and I find this contention to be without merit.

(note: The claimant also contends that he believes that at one point he had been approved for 
unemployment benefits because he received a check. The record does not contain an explanation 
as to how he received a check, but the record clearly indicates that his request for unemployment 
benefits was denied at each level. The fact that he apparently received one check is legally 
insignificant.)

8. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is affirmed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
__________________________ 
Resident Judge 
oc: Prothonotary 
cc: Order Distribution