IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY 

ALCEA SPRUNG, 
Appellant, 
v.
SELBYVILLE CLEANERS, and 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 
APPEAL BOARD,
Appellee. 

Submitted: April 12, 2007 
Decided: April 23, 2007 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Upon Appellant’s Appeal of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Reversed. 

STOKES, J.

This is my decision regarding Alcea Sprung’s appeal from the Unemployment Insurance 
Appeal Board’s denial of unemployment benefits. For the reasons set forth herein, the Board is 
reversed. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Alcea Sprung (hereinafter “Sprung”) was employed for just over one year with Selbyville 
Cleaners (hereinafter “Employer”). On November 8, 2005 Sprung requested a raise, which was later 
denied. The substance of this dispute comes from whether the request for a raise was coupled with 
an ultimatum. Sprung suggests that in making the request she never intended to quit her job. 
Employer posits that Sprung, in effect, said give me the raise or I will quit. 

Following her dismissal, Sprung applied for unemployment benefits. Sprung’s application 
was denied. Appeal was taken from the denial of benefits. The Appeals Referee held a hearing, with 
Sprung present in person and Employer present via phone. The Appeals Referee heard testimony 
from Sprung, Employer and one witness. The Referee concluded that Sprung quit her job voluntarily 
without good cause and was not entitled to benefits. 

Sprung appealed the Referee’s decision to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board 
(hereinafter “Board”). The Board set a hearing date and location. The location specified on the 
notice was Dover. Sprung errantly appeared at the Georgetown office on the date of the hearing. 
From the Georgetown office, she called the Dover office and requested a rescheduling of the hearing. 
In response, she was told to make a written request to the Board. 

On June 3, 2006, Claimant made a written request to the Board for a rehearing. The Board 
denied the request. Subsequently, Claimant appealed the matter to this Court; citing the allegedly
wrongful denial of a rehearing as one of her grounds for appeal. 
A brief schedule was issued by the Superior Court. Sprung filed her opening brief by the 
stated deadline. Employer failed to file an answering brief by the September 11, 2006 deadline. A 
Final Delinquent Brief Notice was sent by the Court on October 5, 2006, giving Employer seven 
days from the date of notice to file an answer. Employer again failed to provide the Court with a 
response. On March 14, 2007 the Court informed Employer, by letter, that it was required to file an 
answering brief. The Court’s letter further noted that if a response was not submitted by April 12, 
2007 the administrative board’s decision may be reversed without further notice from the Court 
under Civil Rule 107. No response was received. 

DISCUSSION 

The efficiency and effectiveness of our judicial system relies heavily on the diligent actions 
of those involved in legal disputes. Filing deadlines are in place to promote such judicial efficiency. 
Because of this, the inexcusable failure of a party to respond when required to do so cannot be 
treated lightly by this Court. 

In Hunter v. First USA/Bank One, 2004 Del. Super. LEXIS 123 (Del. Super. Apr. 15, 2004), 
the Superior Court in New Castle County addressed an issue very similar to the one at hand. In 
Hunter, the Board denied benefits on grounds that the claimant had been discharged for proper cause. 
The claimant appealed the matter to the Superior Court. A brief schedule was issued and no 
response was submitted by the employer. Therefore, the Court concluded that, “despite the 
formidable ‘substantial evidence’ found to exist by the Board, the Court has no other alternative but 
to reverse the Board’s decision due to Appellee’s [employer’s] failure to diligently prosecute and file
its brief pursuant to Rule 107(e).” Hunter v. First USA/Bank One, 2004 Del. Super. LEXIS 123, at 
*18 (Del. Super. Apr. 15, 2004). 

The court in Hunter further noted that parties whose rights are to be affected have a right to 
be heard. However, that right was qualified by the notion that due process only requires that a party 
be properly notified of their duty to respond. The court noted specifically that the Hunter case is 
“one of those rare instances when a party’s unexplained inaction proves both disadvantageous to its 
cause, and results in a windfall for its adversary.” Id. at *19-20. 

The Court must maintain its neutrality and will not advocate a party’s position sua sponte. 
Employer has been afforded every opportunity to respond to this claim and has failed to do so. 
Superior Court Civil Rule 107(e) provides that “if any brief, … or any other paper which is or should 
be a part of a case pending in this Court, is not served and filed … in accordance with any order of 
the Court …, the Court may, in its discretion, dismiss the proceeding if the plaintiff is in default, …, 
or take such other action as it deems necessary to expedite the disposition of the case.” Del. Super. 
Ct. Civ. R. 107(e). In light of this, the Court is left with no other alternative but to reverse the 
Board’s decision. 

CONCLUSION 

Considering the foregoing, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board is 
reversed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED