IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
DARNITA L. JEFFERS, ) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
) C.A. No. 00A-12-001-JRJ 
) 
THE LENSFEST GROUP, ) 
d/b/a SUBURBAN CABLE, ) 
and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
) 
Appellees. ) 
O R D E R 
Submitted: July 12, 2001 
Decided: August 3, 2001 
Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
Decision Affirmed. 
Jeffrey M. Boyer, Esquire, Huffman Law Practices, Wilmington, Delaware, for 
Appellant Darnita L. Jeffers 
Paula C. Witherow, Esquire, Cooch and Taylor, Wilmington, Delaware, for 
Appellee The Lensfest Group. 
JURDEN, Judge 

Having reviewed the parties submissions, as well as the 
record below, the Court finds and concludes as follows: 

1. Posture. In August 1999, Claimant filed with the 
Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment a petition for 
unemployment insurance benefits after being terminated from 
her job with The Lenfest Group, d/b/a Suburban Cable TV 
("Employer" or "Suburban"). A claims deputy granted 
Claimant’s petition, and Employer appealed. After 
conducting a hearing, an appeals referee reversed the claims 
deputy, and Claimant appealed to the Board. The Board heard 
further evidence and granted Claimant’s petition for 
benefits. Employer appealed to the Superior Court. 

2. This Court reversed the Board’s decision and 
remanded the cause for application of the appropriate theory 
of law and resolution of conflicts in the evidence.1 On 
remand, the Board held a hearing and issued a decision on 
November 14, 2000, denying Claimant’s petition. Claimant 
filed a timely appeal to this Court. Briefing is complete, 
Lenfest Group d/b/a Suburban Cable v. Jeffers & UIAB, Del. 
Super., C. A. No. 00A-01-006, Barron, J. (Aug. 14, 2000) (ORDER).
and the issues are ripe for decision. 

3. Facts. Claimant worked for Suburban as a customer 
service representative from June 29, 1998, through August 
25, 1999. Her sole responsibility was to answer telephone 
calls from customers and resolve as many problems as 
possible. 

4. In May 1999, Claimant received a verbal warning 
because she had logged an unacceptably high number of "short 
calls," which Employer defines as any call lasting less than 
10 seconds. Employer monitored the number of short calls 
logged by each customer representative because a short call 
was usually one that is either unresolved or unanswered. 
The acceptable number of short calls was 20 per month. 
Employer had an informal discussion (also referred to as a 
counseling session) with any employee who logged more than 
20 short calls in one month. During May 1999, Claimant had 
a total of 274 short calls. 

5. Immediately following the counseling session, 
Claimant signed a document, prepared by Employer, which 
verified the warning and stated that, if Claimant’s 
performance did not improve, there would be "further 
disciplinary action up to and including termination."
 
Claimant logged 87 short calls in June, 126 in July, and 48 
in August. In July, she logged a 2440 total calls, an 
unduly high number, which often indicates that the customer 
representative is not staying on the line long enough to 
handle the caller’s question or problem. Claimant’s average 
time per call was 1 minute and 55 seconds, compared to an 
expected 3 to 6 minutes per call. 

6. When confronted with her record of short calls, 
Claimant asserted that her short calls were attributable to 
a problem with her sign-on number, but the technical 
personnel were unable to find a problem. Because of 
continuing concerns about Claimant’s performance, in August 
1999, management decided that Claimant was one of several 
employees whose performance warranted further evaluation. 
Claimant’s team leader, Eric Gilcrest, monitored Claimant’s 
calls on August 18, 19 and 20, 1999. 

7. On the afternoon of August 25, 1999, Mike 
Collison, customer satisfaction manager, monitored 
Claimant’s calls after the lunch break. During a 10-minute 
time span, Collison noted 5 to 7 unanswered calls. A 
colleague joined him in listening for another 5 minutes, 
when 6 to 7 calls went unanswered. Collison then asked 
Claimant to accompany him to the office of Cathy Joseph, 
manager of Human Resources. Collison asked Claimant if 
there were any problems with her equipment, and she said no. 
After an interview of a which lasted approximately 10 
minutes, Claimant was terminated and subsequently filed for 
unemployment benefits. 

8. The Board’s decision following remand. After 
conducting a second hearing, the Board issued a decision 
denying Claimant’s petition on November 1, 2000. The Board 
made the following findings of fact. First, Claimant had 
been counseled on short calls on June 3, 1999, and warned 
that further problems in this area could result in 
termination. Second, between June and August 25, 1999, 
Claimant was informally advised of the continuing problem by 
her supervisor during one or two of the weekly team 
meetings. Third, Claimant’s number of short calls decreased 
during the summer months of 1999, but her performance in 
this area was still a problem. Fourth, Claimant had been 
given almost three months to resolve her problem with short 
calls and had not done so. Fifth, Claimant’s termination 
was not part of a pattern of layoffs. Based on these 
findings, the Board concluded that Claimant’s continued 
pattern of excessive short calls and her failure to answer 
the phone on August 25 constituted wanton misconduct in 
violation of her duties, and that she was discharged for 
just cause in connection with her work. Having found just 
cause on these issues, the Board declined to rule on the 
additional reasons for the termination offered by Employer. 

9. Issues on appeal. Claimant argues that the Board 
erred in concluding that Claimant’s pattern of excessive 
short calls constituted just cause for dismissal. Claimant 
also argues that the Board erred in concluding that 
Claimant’s conduct on August 25, 1999, constituted just 
cause. Employer responds that the Board’s factual findings 
are supported by substantial evidence and that the decision 
is free from legal error. 

10. Standard of review. The function of this Court on 
review of a Board decision is to determine whether the 
decision is supported by substantial evidence3 and is free 
from legal error. Substantial evidence is such relevant 
evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate 
to support a conclusion. This Court does not weigh the 
evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make 
factual findings in the first instance. Rather, this 
Court’s role is to determine whether the evidence is legally 
adequate to support the Board’s findings. 

11. Just cause for dismissal. An individual is 
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits when he is 
"discharged from the individual’s work for just cause in 
connection with the individual’s work...." Just cause 
means wilful or wanton misconduct in violation of the 
employer’s interest, the employee’s duties, or the 
employee’s expected standard of conduct. "Wilful" 
misconduct requires a showing of actual, specific or evil 
intent, whereas "wanton" misconduct requires a showing of 
heedless, malicious or reckless conduct but not a bad motive 
or an intent to cause harm. The employer bears the burden 
of showing that an employee was terminated for just cause. 

12. Excessive short calls. Claimant argues first 
that the Board erred in finding that her pattern of short 
calls constituted just cause for termination. She asserts 
that, as a matter of law, Employer condoned Claimant’s 
number of short calls during July and August and therefore 
could not terminate Claimant on the basis of short calls. 
In support of this contention, Claimant relies on Oddo v. 
Charcoal Pit.12 

13. In Oddo, the claimant, Mr. Oddo, and his employer 
agreed that claimant would work part-time until his annual 
wages met the allowable social security income cap for 
retired persons. For six months, all went well, but 
thereafter, Mr. Oddo and his supervisor began to disagree 
about scheduling. During their third argument, claimant was 
fired. This Court found that Mr. Oddo had not been 
terminated for just cause because the employer had agreed to 
accommodate him and the employer never warned him that 
Del. Super., 1989 WL 48581, Herlihy, J. (April 17, 1989).
continued inflexibility as to scheduling could lead to 
termination. Furthermore, Mr. Oddo’s employer was satisfied 
with his job performance and only concerned about his 
scheduling flexibility. 

14. In the case at bar, Claimant was warned about 
excessive short calls and signed a verification of the 
warning which indicated that she could be terminated if her 
performance did not improve. Furthermore, Employer in no 
way accommodated Claimant’s performance level. In sum, Oddo 
does not support Claimant’s position. The Court concludes 
that the Board did not err as a matter of law when it ruled 
that Claimant’s short calls constituted just cause for 
dismissal. 

15. Claimant also challenges the Board’s factual 
findings on short calls. Specifically, Claimant asserts 
that because Claimant’s number of short calls for August 
decreased to 48, Claimant’s termination was not for just 
cause. This argument ignores the fact that the acceptable 
number of short calls was 20 per month. Claimant was made 
aware of Employer’s expectations about short calls in the 
June 3 counseling session and also in weekly team meetings. 

The Board explicitly accepted Gilcrest’s testimony that he 
regularly addressed this topic with his team members because 
customer service was their sole responsibility and that he 
had discussed it with Claimant on one or two occasions 
between June and August 1999. There is substantial record 
evidence to support the Board’s factual findings regarding 
short calls. 

16. The Court concludes that the Board did not err 
when it concluded that Claimant’s continued pattern of 
excessive short calls constituted just cause for 
dismissal. 

Another indication of Claimant’s poor performance was the length 
of her calls. Her average handle time was 1:55 minutes, compared to 
the 4 to 5 minutes normally required to resolve a problem or even 
answer a question. Cathy Joseph, manager, human resources, testified 
that the reports indicated that Claimant often answered calls but 
immediately put the caller on hold, often causing the caller to hang 
up. Because these calls lasted longer than 20 seconds, they were not 
recorded as short calls. In this way, Claimant took numerous calls 
without actually speaking to any customers. The Board determined that
it did not need to reach this issue because it found just cause on the 
issue of short calls.

17. Claimant’s conduct on August 25, 1999. Claimant 
argues that the Board erred in finding that Claimant’s 
failure to answer the phone on August 25 was just cause for 
dismissal. The Court notes first that the Board found that 
the events of August 25 in combination with the pattern of 
short calls constituted wanton misconduct in violation of 
Claimant’s duties. In regard to August 25, the Board 
pointed out that Claimant had been given three months to 
correct her performance problems and had not done so. 
Because Claimant had been warned that her performance was 
less than satisfactory, the Board found that her failure to 
plug in her earphones or even to even notice the blinking 
lights was wanton misconduct in violation of her duties and 
Employer’s interests. Wanton misconduct means heedless, 
malicious or reckless misconduct and does not require a 
showing of bad motive or intent to cause harm. 

18. In light of Claimant’s awareness of Employer’s 
concern about short calls, the Court concludes that the 
record evidence is legally adequate to support the Board’s 
finding that Claimant’s behavior on August 25 constituted 
wanton misconduct of her duties and Employer’s expected 
standard of conduct. 

For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the 
Board’s decision denying Claimant’s petition for 
unemployment insurance benefits must be and hereby is 
Affirmed. 

It Is So ORDERED. 
________________________________ 
______ 
Jan R. Jurden, Judge