IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR THE NEW CASTLE COUNTY 

CAROL STEWART, ) 
Appellant, ) 
v.
CONNECTIONS, ) 
and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
Appellees. ) 

Date Submitted: April 22, 2008 
Date Decided: July 9, 2008 

Upon Appeal from the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. 

AFFIRMED 
O R D E R 

This 9th day of July 2008, upon consideration of the appeal of Carol Stewart 
("Ms. Stewart"), from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the 
"Board") denying her claim for unemployment benefits against her former employer, 
Connections ("Connections"),1 it appears to the Court that: 

1. Ms. Stewart was employed as a staff member at the Chadwick Supervised 
Apartments, a program run by Connections, from January 16, 2003 until June 5, 2007, 
when her employment was terminated.2 On June 5, 2007, Ms. Stewart’s supervisor, 
Sara Gundel ("Ms. Gundel"), approached Ms. Stewart with a performance write up 
regarding her failure properly to complete Medicine Administration Reports 
("MARs") for residents to whom she had administered medication.3 Ms. Stewart had 
been written up for similar infractions in the past.4 Ms. Gundel reports that upon 
presenting Ms. Stewart with the write up Ms. Stewart became irate and told Ms. 
Gundel that she was "full of shit," "wait till (sic) they find something on you, I’m 
gonna (sic) get something on you," and "fuck this" (repeatedly).5 Ms. Gundel then 
sent Ms. Stewart home for the remainder of the day, but told her to report the 
following morning at 10:00 a.m. for a meeting with Ms. Gundel and her supervisor.6 

2. On June 6, 2007, the following morning, Ms. Stewart failed to show up 
at the scheduled meeting.7 Later that same day Ms. Stewart spoke with Ms. Gundel 
who directed her to contact Human Resources. Ms. Stewart claims to have called 
Human Resources but received no answer. She is unsure whether she left a message. 
At some later point, Ms. Stewart spoke with Human Resources and was informed that 
her employment with Connections had been terminated.8 

3. Ms. Stewart filed for unemployment compensation with the Delaware 
Department of Labor ("DOL") on June 10, 2007.9 On July 3, 2007, a Claims Deputy 
for the DOL determined that Connections terminated Ms. Stewart for misconduct in 
connection with her work constituting just cause.10 Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(2), 
this finding disqualified Ms. Stewart from receiving unemployment compensation.11 

4. On July 6, 2007, Ms. Stewart appealed the Claims Deputy’s decision to 
the Appeals Referee. After a hearing, the Appeals Referee issued her decision on 
August 17, 2007, reversing the Claims Deputy’s determination that Ms. Stewart was 
terminated for just cause. The Referee explained in her decision that the employer 
failed to establish "willful and wanton misconduct" on Ms. Stewart’s part.12 The 
Referee reasoned that Connections had failed to meet its evidentiary burden because 
the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the incident leading to Ms. Stewart’s 
termination was hearsay.13 As a result of the insufficient evidence, the Appeals 
Referee concluded that Ms. Ms. Stewart was entitled to unemployment 
compensation.14 

5. On August 22, 2007, Connections appealed the Referee’s decision to the 
Board and a hearing was held on September 19, 2007.15 The Board issued its decision 
that same day, reversing the Referee’s decision upon concluding that Ms. Stewart’s 
actions gave Connections just cause for termination because the misconduct was 
willful and wanton.16 The Board determined that Ms. Grundel’s firsthand account of 
the events leading to termination was credible and demonstrated Ms. Stewart had 
engaged in an act of insubordination. This conduct gave Connections just cause to 
terminate her employment.17 The Board relied upon the definition of insubordination 
as set forth in Delaware case law. Courts have defined insubordination as "the refusal 
to obey the order of a superior which the superior is entitled to give and have 
obeyed."18 In making its determination, the Board applied this definition of 
insubordination to the incident in question and found that Ms. Gundel, as Ms. 
Stewart’s superior, was entitled to give the order that she attend a meeting the 
morning following her aggressive outburst.19 The Board found Ms. Stewart’s failure 
to obey this direction to be a clear case of insubordination, resulting in her termination 
for just cause.20 

6. On November 27, 2007, Ms. Stewart filed a pro se appeal of the Board’s 
decision with this Court.21 She filed her one page Opening Brief on January 22, 2008. 
No response was filed by the Board or Connections.22 

7. This Court repeatedly has emphasized the limited extent of its appellate 
review of administrative determinations. The Court’s review is confined to ensuring 
that the hearing officer made no errors of law and determining whether "substantial 
evidence" supports the hearing officer’s factual findings.23 Questions of law that arise 
from the hearing officer’s decision are subject to de novo review, pursuant to Superior 
Court Civil Rule 3(c), which requires the Court to determine whether the hearing 
officer erred in formulating or applying legal precepts.24 Substantial evidence means 
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 
conclusion."25 It is "more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance of the 
evidence."26 The "substantial evidence" standard of review contemplates a significant 
degree of deference to the hearing officer’s factual conclusions and its application of 
those conclusions to the appropriate legal standards.27 In its review, the Court will 
consider the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party below.28 

8. Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314, an employee is disqualified from receiving 
unemployment compensation if she is discharged for just cause. Just cause is defined 
as "a willful or wanton act or pattern of conduct in violation of the employer’s 
interest, the employee’s duties, or the employee’s expected standard of conduct."29 
"Willful and wanton conduct is that which is evidenced by either conscious action, or 
reckless indifference leading to a deviation from established and acceptable workplace 
performance."30 There is no requirement that the conduct be performed with bad 
motive or malice.31

 9. The record before the Board consisted of the testimony of both Ms. 
Stewart and Ms. Gundel, the superior at whom Ms. Stewart’s obscene tirade was 
directed, and the evidentiary record of Ms. Stewart’s history of write ups for 
unsatisfactory job performance.32 The Board, as fact finder, found Ms. Gundel’s 
testimony to be more credible than that of Ms. Ms. Stewart, which it described as 
"muddled and barely coherent."33 Ms. Gundel’s testimony and the evidentiary record 
indicate that Ms. Stewart was directed to appear at 10:00 a.m. on the morning of June 
6, 2007, to meet with Ms. Gundel and her supervisor so that she could answer for her 
insubordination the day before. Ms. Stewart’s failure to appear amounts to disregard 
of an order that a superior is entitled to give and have obeyed, an insubordinate act. 
There was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s finding that 
Connections had discharged Ms. Stewart for just cause. Additionally, the record 
indicates that Ms. Stewart was warned on several occasions that her failure to comport 
with the job standards set forth by Connections could result in the termination of her 
employment.34 

10. Based on the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that the Board applied the 
correct legal standards and that its decision is supported by substantial evidence.35 
Accordingly, the decision of the Board denying Ms. Stewart unemployment 
compensation must be AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Judge Joseph R. Slights, III 
Original to Prothonotary