IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY 
MARY ANN WASHINGTON, ) 
) 
Appellant ) 
) 
v. ) 
) C.A. No. 03A-11-007 MMJ 
DIAMOND STATE SECURITY, ) 
) 
Appellee ) 
) 
and ) 
) 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) 
APPEAL BOARD, ) 
) 
Appellee )
Submitted: May 11, 2004 
Decided: June 15, 2004 
ORDER 
UPON APPEAL FROM A DIVISION OF THE 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD 
AFFIRMED 

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions in this appeal of a decision of 
the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") affirming the decision 
of the Appeal Referee, and denying Mary Ann Washington ("Claimant")’s 
appeal on the basis that the Claimant voluntarily quit her employment without 
good cause attributable to the work, the Court concludes as follows: 

1. Claimant was employed by Diamond State Security ("Employer") 
from February 21 to June 8, 2003. She was injured at the Port Authority on 
April 15, 2003 and was under a doctor’s care for approximately two months. 
Claimant returned to Employer, but had childcare issues. 

2. Claimant was assigned by Employer to National Car Auction 
("Auction"). According to Claimant, she worked there every time she was 
assigned, even though she was not supplied with necessary equipment, such as 
a proper radio. Employer refused to send Claimant anywhere else even though 
Claimant felt that the site was dangerous. Claimant asked Employer to take her 
off the schedule until they had somewhere else to assign her. Employer agreed 
to do so. 

3. Claimant then called periodically, but was informed that there was 
no work. Claimant was told to return her uniform. As Claimant was in the 
process of doing so, another officer gave her a work schedule of four days a 
week. Claimant went into the office to speak with Employer’s operation 
manager, but the manager refused to place Claimant in the position. 

4. At times, Claimant refused work due to childcare issues. Claimant 
needed Employer to complete documentation for the Department of Health and 
Social Services ("DHSS") in order to provide childcare, but according to 
Claimant, Employer refused. 

5. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment benefits against the State 
of Delaware. Based upon the information obtained, the Claims Deputy 
determined on August 4, 2003 that Claimant had not been available for suitable 
work offers by the employer due to personal issues and was disqualified from 
the receipt of benefits, effective with or for week ending June 21, 2003. 

6. Claimant filed an appeal with the Division of Unemployment 
Insurance Appeals on August 12, 2003. The Appeals Referee modified and 
affirmed the decision of the Claims Deputy in accordance with 19 Del. C. § 
3315(1), which provides: 


AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED FOR BENEFITS: 
For the week in which the individual left work voluntarily without 
good cause attributable to such work and for each week thereafter 
until the individual has been employed in each of 4 subsequent 
weeks (whether or not consecutive) and has earned wages in 
covered employment equal to not less than 4 times the weekly 
benefit amount. 

7. According to the Referee’s opinion, an employee who voluntarily 
terminates her employment will be disqualified from the receipt of 
unemployment benefits unless she can show that she had good cause for leaving, 
and that her reason or reasons for doing so were directly related to her work or 
to her employer. 

8. Good cause can be found where there has been a substantial 
reduction in hours or wages, or a substantial deviation in the working conditions 
from the original agreement of hire to the detriment of the employee. 
Dissatisfaction with the workplace or dangerous working conditions will not be 
good cause to quit unless the employee does something akin to exhausting her 
administrative remedies by placing the employer on clear notice of the problem 
so that it might be corrected. 

9. The Referee found that Claimant was unemployed because she was 
dissatisfied with the working conditions at the main assignment she was given. 
There was no evidence that she tried to go through channels to correct the 
problem. Instead, she asked to be taken off the schedule until a new assignment 
came along. This amounted to voluntarily quitting her employment. Employer 
was under no obligation to take Claimant back when there was other work 
available. Claimant ended the employment relationship by asking to be taken 
off the schedule. 

10. As to whether Claimant had good cause to quit, the Referee stated 
that Claimant may have had concerns about the assignment at the Auction, but 
there was no evidence of any change in Claimant’s working conditions. It 
appears that she simply asked for another assignment and when none was 
available, asked to be taken off the schedule. Claimant’s choice to be 
unemployed, therefore, was a personal one and not sufficiently attributable to 
the work so as to constitute good cause. 

11. According to the Referee’s decision, Claimant voluntarily quit her 
employment without good cause attributable to the work. Therefore, she is 
disqualified from the receipt of unemployment benefits, effective with the week 
ending June 21, 2003. 

12. Claimant then appealed the decision of the Referee to the Board. 
A hearing was held and a decision rendered on Wednesday, October 8, 2003, 
affirming the decision of the Appeals Referee. 

13. Employer’s witness testified at the hearing that she had never 
received DHSS verification. Claimant asked for a letter to DHSS on July 18, 
2003, but never brought in the proper form which DHSS required. Employer 
took Claimant off the work schedule because it was impossible for Employer to 
work around the restrictions on Claimant’s schedule due to child-care problems. 
There also were complaints from Employer’s clients that Claimant was sleeping 
on the job or playing "Game Boy" while on duty. Employer made two-way 
radios available. 

14. Employer’s witness testified that she spoke with Claimant on July 
21, 2003, when Claimant told her that she wished to be taken off the schedule 
because she was going back to school and taking another part-time job. 
Claimant was offered a four-day-per-week assignment on the day Claimant 
returned her uniform. Employer never told Claimant that her services were no 
longer needed. 

15. In its decision, the Board stated that in a case where the claimant has 
voluntarily terminated employment, "the employee must have had a conscious 
intention to leave or terminate the employment." The burden of proof is on the 
claimant to show "good cause" for leaving her employment. "[A]n employee 
does not have a good cause to quit merely because of an undesirable or unsafe 
situation connected with his employment" without first "seeking to have the 
situation corrected by proper notice to his employer." 

16. The Board considered two issues: (1) whether Claimant voluntarily 
quit her employment; and (2) whether Claimant had good cause to terminate her 
employment. 

17. As to the first issue, the record indicates that Claimant last worked 
for Employer on June 8, 2003 and filed for unemployment on June 15. Claimant 
is presumed to have believed that she was unemployed at the time of filing. 
Nothing in the record or in the testimony before the Board indicates that 
Employer took any job action against Claimant prior to that date. Therefore, if 
the Claimant was unemployed on June 15, it could only be because she had 
terminated her employment voluntarily. 

18. As to the second issue, the Board stated that the record shows that 
Claimant was dissatisfied with her job conditions and had a restricted schedule 
resulting from childcare responsibilities. Claimant testified specifically about 
being sent to potentially dangerous sites but was not sufficiently anxious about 
her safety to prevent her from sleeping in her car or playing electronic games on 
the job. Security guards are sent to job sites where security is presumably 
needed for a reason, and it is presumed that when a person accepts employment, 
he or she assumes the normal risk inherent in that employment. There is no 
evidence in the record that indicates that Claimant was ever sent to a job site 
where armed security personnel were required. There is no evidence of 
abnormal risks. No evidence was presented that there was substantial reduction 
in hours or wages, or a substantial deviation in the working conditions from the 
original agreement of hire to the detriment of the employee. 

19. The Supreme Court and this Court repeatedly have emphasized the 
limited appellate review of the factual findings of an administrative agency. In 
reviewing the decisions of the agency, this Court must determine whether the 
findings and conclusions of the Board are free from legal error and supported 
by substantial evidence in the record. 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. 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.

20. The Court finds that the decision of the Board took into account not 
only the record of the case but also additional testimony of both Claimant and 
Employer. In determining whether Claimant voluntarily quit her employment, 
the Board did not simply rely on the evidence considered by Referee, but looked 
at evidence inherent in the dates of the last day worked and the filing for 
unemployment. Further testimony was heard on the issue of whether Claimant 
had voluntarily terminated employment. Similarly in determining whether 
Claimant had good cause to terminate her employment, the Board looked into 
Claimant’s dissatisfaction with her job conditions, especially concerns regarding 
security to determine their validity. 

21. It appears to the Court that in affirming the decision of the Appeals 
Referee and denying benefits to Claimant, the Board adopted the pertinent 
findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Appeals Referee, for which there 
was adequate evidence in the record. 

22. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Board’s decision denying 
Claimant’s appeal based upon the Board’s finding that Claimant is disqualified 
from the receipt of unemployment benefits for the week in which she left her 
work voluntarily without good case attributable to such work is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

The Honorable Mary M. Johnston 
Orig: Prothonotary