Ms. Kathy King 
RD 2, Box 331A 
Millsboro, DE 19966 
First State Community Action 
P.O. Box 877 
Georgetown, DE 19947 
Attn: Timothy McGhee 
RE: Kathy King v. First State Community 
Action and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, 
CONSOLIDATED 
C.A. No. 00A-12-003 
C.A. No. 99A-09-002 
Date Submitted: July 26, 2001 
Date Decided: October 29, 2001 

Dear Ms. King and Mr. McGhee: 

This is the Court’s decision on the appeal by Kathy King ("Claimant") of the decision by the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") to deny Claimant unemployment benefits. The 
Board affirmed a Referee’s denial of employee benefits under 19 Del. C. 33. The Referee found that 
the Claimant refused an offer of work for which she was reasonably fitted. The Referee concluded, 
and the Board agreed, that the Claimant’s refusal disqualified her from unemployment 
compensation under the statute. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3323, the Claimant has appealed the 
Board’s decision to this Court. 

FACTS 

Claimant was employed for approximately two years with First State Community Action 
("First State") as a bus driver. The job paid $8.17 an hour and the Claimant worked approximately 
five hours a day. Because First State owned the buses, the Claimant had been allowed to take a bus 
home with her at night. 

On or about May 27, 1999, Claimant was informed that her job would end on June 9, 1999. 
She was subsequently offered a position with First State in the Summer Feeding Program that was 
to begin on June 14, 1999. That position involved driving a van from Laurel to various points in 
Sussex County. The job paid $8.00 an hour and she would have worked approximately six hours 
a day. However, she was required to provide her own transportation to and from work, as she was 
not allowed to take a van home at night.
 
FACTS 

Claimant was employed for approximately two years with First State Community Action 
("First State") as a bus driver. The job paid $8.17 an hour and the Claimant worked approximately 
five hours a day. Because First State owned the buses, the Claimant had been allowed to take a bus 
home with her at night. 

On or about May 27, 1999, Claimant was informed that her job would end on June 9, 1999. 
She was subsequently offered a position with First State in the Summer Feeding Program that was 
to begin on June 14, 1999. That position involved driving a van from Laurel to various points in 
Sussex County. The job paid $8.00 an hour and she would have worked approximately six hours 
a day. However, she was required to provide her own transportation to and from work, as she was 
not allowed to take a van home at night. 

The Claimant testified that she received a call from First State offering her a position. She 
claims she refused this offer because she was required to provide her own transportation to and from 
work without reimbursement. First State contended that the Claimant accepted the job on June 11 
and that she was to start work on June 14. However, she failed to show up for work on that date. 
Claimant later applied for unemployment benefits, which precipitated this litigation. 

DISCUSSION 

This Court’s standard of review for appeals from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal 
Board is not unfettered. "The scope of review of findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal 
Board, like the scope of review in appeals from the Industrial Accident Board, is limited to a 
determination of whether there was substantial evidence sufficient to support the findings." 
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. Of Dep’t of Labor v. Duncan, Del. Supr., 337 A.2d 308, 309 (1975). 
While this Court closely examines the facts underlying the claim, it does not have the power to 
make factual determinations.5 Rather, "the findings of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 
as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the 
jurisdiction of the Court shall be confined to questions of law." 19 Del. C. § 3323(a). 

It is this Court’s opinion that the record shows substantial evidence sufficient to support the 
Board’s conclusion that the Claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation 
benefits. The new position offered to the Claimant was substantially the same as the prior position 
she held. Both positions involved driving a commercial vehicle to various points in Sussex County. 
The rates of pay and hours worked were also substantially the same. Therefore, the evidence 
supports the Referee’s finding, as adopted by the Board, that the Claimant was reasonably fitted for 
Furthermore, this Court may only consider facts contained in the record. Arguments 
made by either party that are not supported by the record are ignored.
the new position. 

The evidence also supports the Referee’s finding, as adopted by the Board, that the Claimant 
could not show good cause for refusing the position. The Claimant refused the offer because she 
would be required to provide her own transportation to and from work. However, it is not 
unreasonable for an employer to request an employee to provide her own transportation to and from 
work. The fact that she was able to take a bus home after work in her previous position is not a 
factor in this determination. Accordingly, Claimant’s reason for refusing the new position does not 
constitute "good cause." 

Substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s conclusion that the Claimant refused an 
offer of work for which she was reasonably fitted. Accordingly, the Board’s decision is affirmed 
and the Claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours, 
E. Scott Bradley 
cc: Prothonotary 
James Hanley, Esquire