IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A., ) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) 
) 
MARIA CAPELLA, ) C.A. No: 02A-09-014 RSG 
) 
and ) 
) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD ) 
) 
Appellees. ) 
Submitted: February 5, 2003 
Decided: April 15, 2003 

Upon Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
AFFIRMED. 

Scott A. Holt, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware, for Appellant MBNA America Bank, N.A.. 
Maria Capella, Pennsville, New Jersey, Appellee, pro se.
Stephani J. Ballard, Esquire, Wilmingto n, Delaware, for Appellee UIAB.
ORDER 

MBNA America Bank, N.A. ("MBNA" or "Employer") is appealing a decision of the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("UIAB" or "Board") in which the Board reversed the 
decision of the Appeals Referee and awarded benefits. Upon review of the parties submissions 
and the record below, the Court concludes that the Board’s decision must be affirmed. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Maria Capella ("Claimant") was employed by MBNA from April 14, 1987 through April 
29, 2002, at which time she was terminated from her position as a risk control analyst III. 
According to MBNA’s corrective action report, Claimant was fired for misconduct according to 
personnel policy 601. Specifically, Claimant disconnected 47 customer calls within the first ten 
seconds of receiving the calls between April 2, 2002 and April 14, 2002. On April 3, 2002, calls 
were taped for educational purposes and it was discovered that Claimant was disconnecting calls 
in less than ten seconds. As a result, the "Te n Second Report" was pulled fo r five business days 
which indicated that Claimant had released 47 of 410 calls or 11.4 percent between April 2, 2002 
and April 14, 2002. On April 16, 2002, Claimant met with her manager, Brad Jones, who gave 
her an excellent six month review. The following day, the Department Manager, Bill Trench met 
with Claimant and told her that it would benefit her to admit what happened. Claimant took his 
advice and admitted that she disconnected the calls. On April 22, 2002, Melissa Rice of 
personnel and Bill Trench met with Claimant and told her that she did not need a lawyer. 
Claimant was terminated 45 minutes after arriving for work on April 29, 2002 and filed for 
unemployment benefits. 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE 

The record reflects that Claimant filed for unemployment benefits on April 28, 2002, as a 
result of being terminated from her job at MBNA. On May 23, 2002, the Claims Deputy made 
the determination that Claimant was disqualified from receipt of benefits because her actions 
rose to the level of willful misconduct. Claimant filed a timely appeal on June 5, 2002, and a 
hearing with an Appeals Referee ("Referee") was scheduled for July 18, 2002. The Referee 
affirmed the decision of the Claims Deputy and found that appellant was discharged for just 
cause and is disqualified from the receipt of unemployment benefits. 

Claimant filed a timely appeal of the Referee’s decision with the UIAB on July 29, 2002, 
and a hearing was scheduled. On September 4, 2002, the Board held a hearing and issued a 
decision reversing the decision of the Referee. The Board found that Claimant was discharged 
from her work without just cause and awarded unemployment benefits, provided that she was 
otherwise qualified and eligible, beginning with the week that Claimant first filed a valid claim. 
In support of the reversal, the Board found that Claimant did not deliberately disconnect 
customer phone calls and, even if she had, MBNA would have been required to put Claimant on 
notice that her conduct would result in termination from her employment. While the Board did 
make note that the Referee was, in fact, correct that certain actions may permit an inference of 
willful or wanton conduct, it ultimately found that Claimant’s conduct did not rise to that level. 

The Board’s decision became final on September 22, 2002. MBNA filed a timely notice of 
appeal on September 27, 2002 from the decision of the UIAB on the grounds that (1) the decision 
was not supported by the evidence in the record; and, (2) the decision was incorrect as a matter of 
law. 

ISSUES ON APPEAL 

MBNA filed a timely appeal of the Board's decision raising two issues for review. First, 
employer argues that the Board’s finding that Claimant did not intentionally disconnect customer 
callers is not supported by substantial evidence. Second, MBNA argues that the Board erred in 
it’s decision requiring employer to put Claimant on notice that intentionally disconnecting 
customer calls would result in termination. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

The function of the reviewing Court is to determine whether the agency’s decision is 
supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a 
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Substantial evidence 
requires "m ore than a scintilla b ut less than a prepond erance" to su pport the finding.3 The 
appellate court does not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own 
factual findings. It merely determines if the evidence is legally adequate to support the agency’s 
factual findings. 

If the record below contains substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board, then that 
decision will not be disturbed.6 

DISCUSSION 

MBNA’s first argument is that the Board’s finding that Claimant did not intentionally 
disconnect customer callers is not supported by substantial evidence. However, the Board 
indicates in it’s opinion that "even if the employer had met its burden of proving that claimant 
had deliberately released the calls early...this would not rise to the level of willful misconduct."7 
Based upon the Board’s alternative finding, it appears to the Court that employer’s first argument 
need not be reached. The issue is whether MBNA fired claimant with or without just cause 
which logically flows into employer’s second argument. 

MBNA’s second argument is that the Board erred in it’s decision requiring employer to 
put Claimant on notice that intentionally disconnecting customer calls would result in 
termination. In support of the second argument, MBNA alleges that despite the fact that they 
provided Claimant with an opportunity to explain her actions, there is no support for the Board’s 
conclusion that MBNA was legally obligated to do so prior to terminating her for just cause. 
MBNA also takes issue with the Board’s finding that Claimant was required to be notified that 
her actions could result in termination. 

An employee may be denied unemployment benefits upon a finding that the employee 
was terminated for "just cause." Under Delaware law, the burden is on the employer to show 
that the employee was terminated for just cause. "Just cause" is defined as "a wilful or wanton 
act in violation of either the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties or of the employee’s 
expected standard of conduct." Wilful or wanton conduct requires a showing that one was 
conscious of one’s conduct and recklessly indifferent of its consequences. Every act that 
violates an employer’s interest, the employee’s duties or expected standard of behavior is not 
necessarily a wilful or wanton act. Although Claimant’s acts of disconnecting calls clearly 
would violate the employer’s interests and the employee’s expected standard of conduct, the 
Board accepted Claimant’s testimony as credible that she did not deliberately release the calls 
earl y.13 In the alternative, the Board found that even if MBNA had met its burden of proving that 
Claimant did release the calls early, this conduct would not rise to the level of wanton or willful 
misconduct. 

Employees are entitled to some notice that their performance is unacceptable before 
being discharged. This warning need not expressly state the ultimate consequences but must give 
notice of the impropriety of the acts.15 Just cause includes notice to the employee in the form of a 
final warning that further poor behavior or performance may lead to termination.16 MBNA 
admittedly does not make personnel policy 601 available to it’s employees. There is no evidence 
that Claimant had a previous record of similar conduct. In Claimant’s five years of employment 
with MBNA, she had previously only been given one verbal warning in February 2001 for an 
unrelated issue. In fact, Claimant was given an excellent six month review on April 16, 2002, 
less than two weeks before she was terminated. 

Employer relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Unemployment Ins. Bd. v. Martin, to 
support its proposition that wilful or wanton, if sufficiently egregious, may justify dismissal 
without wa rning.17 The facts of Martin are wholly distinguishable from the instant case because 
the employees in that case were given explicit warnings that if they chose to disobey an order not 
to be absent from work, they would be terminated. In this case, the Board found that Claimant’s 
conduct, whether deliberate or not, does not rise to the level of wanton or wilful. The court finds 
that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Board. 

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Board’s decision awarding Claimant benefits is 

AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
The Honorable Richard S. Gebelein 
Orig: Prothonotary 
cc: Scott A. Holt, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. 
Maria C apella, Pe nnsville, New Jersey. 
Stephani J. Ballard, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware.