IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
) 
CITY OF WILMINGTON, ) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) C.A. No. 01A-03-011-JEB 
) 
SHARON HAMILTON, ) 
and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
) 
Appellees. ) 
Submitted: July 24, 2001 
Decided: October 18, 2001 
Appeal From a Decision of The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
Reversed and Remanded. 
OPINION 
Appearances: 
Brenda James-Roberts, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. 
Attorney for Appellant, City of Wilmington. 
Philip Bartoshesky, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. 
Attorney for Appellee, Sharon Hamilton. 
Stephani Ballard, Esquire, Wilmington, Delaware. 
Attorney for Appellee, Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 
JOHN E. BABIARZ, JR., JUDGE. 

This case is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 
("Board" or "UIAB") granting unemployment benefits to Claimant Sharon Hamilton. As 
discussed below, the Court finds that the record evidence does not support the Board’s 
finding that Claimant was terminated from her employment because of undue absenteeism. 
The decision of the Board is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to the Board for 
further consideration. 

FACTS 

In December 1996, Claimant was hired by the City of Wilmington ("City" or 
"Employer") on a temporary basis as an administrative aid specialist in the Division of 
Economic Development. In August 2000, Claimant told certain friends and co-workers that 
she was being harassed by Thornton Carroll, acting director of Economic Development, 
because of a federal lawsuit she filed against the City in July 2000. Claimant’s last day of 
work was September 15, 2000. The next day she not report to work and did not call in to 
explain her absence. After her third consecutive day of unexplained absence, Claimant’s 
supervisor, Thomas Moyer, called her at home. Claimant said she had not gone to work 
because her child had suffered a severe asthmatic attack. Although she indicated that she 
would return to work the following Monday, she never returned to her job. 
On September 21, 2000, Moyer wrote Claimant a letter memorializing their phone 
conversation and stating that if she did not come to work on Monday, September 25, 2000, 
Moyer would assume that she had quit. Because the letter was sent to Claimant’s previous 
address, she never received it, and she did not return to work. In fact, Claimant had filed for 
unemployment benefits the previous week, stating that she quit her job because of 
harassment. 

The matter was referred to a claims referee, who determined that Claimant had not 
been harassed and that she voluntarily quit her job without just cause, therefore disqualifying 
her from receiving unemployment benefits. Claimant appealed to the Board. After 
conducting a hearing, the Board reversed the referee, finding that Claimant was terminated 
because of her absenteeism. The Board also found that because the City had not adequately 
warned Claimant about the consequences of continued absenteeism, it had discharged her 
without just cause and that she was therefore entitled to unemployment benefits. The City 
filed a timely appeal to this Court. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

In reviewing decisions of the UIAB, the Court must determine whether the Board’s 
findings and conclusions are free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence on 
the record. Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This Court does not weigh the evidence 
Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, Del. Supr., 431 A.2d 1265 (1981). 
Streett v. State, Del. Supr., 669 A.2d 9, 11 (1995).
or make factual findings, but merely determines if the evidence is adequate to support the 
Board’s findings. 

DISCUSSION 

The Board found that although Claimant "genuinely felt harassed," she was 
terminated without warning because of her absenteeism. However, the evidence clearly 
shows that Claimant quit her job. As she stated on the record, "I quit because of the 
harassment that I was getting." She made a similar claim on her application for 
unemployment benefits, which was filed on September 17, 2000, three days prior to 
Moyer’s letter. In fact, neither party took the position that Claimant was fired. The Court 
concludes that the record does not support the Board’s finding that Claimant was terminated 
by the City. 

A claimant who quits work voluntarily bears the burden of showing "good cause 
attributable to such work." Good cause for quitting is "such cause as would justify one in 
voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed." 

In this case, Claimant said she quit because of harassment, which she described as follows: 
[Carroll] told me to start looking for another job. If I was late, he would say 
something about me being late. I don’t have no control over my daughter 
being sick. If I had to leave to go pick her up from school it was always 
something said. 

That was basically, that was all that he harassed me for was me being there, me 
coming in, me not being, I was sick, if I had to leave.
 
In its decision, the Board made no findings as to whether Claimant was in fact being harassed 
because of the lawsuit she filed. On remand, the Board must answer this question and 
determine whether Claimant had good cause to quit her job and join the ranks of the 
unemployed. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board granting unemployment benefits 
to Sharon Hamilton is Reversed, and the case is Remanded to the Board for further 
proceedings consistent with this Opinion. 

It Is So ORDERED. 
___________________________ 
John E. Babiarz, Jr. 
JEB,jr/RMP/BJW 
Original to Prothonotary