Case Title: Brittingham v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

Citation: 

Docket Number: 33, 2023

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2023-07-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
SAMANTHA BRITTINGHAM, 
 
Appellant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 
APPEAL BOARD, 
 
Appellee Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 33, 2023 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. S22A-07-001 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:   May 26, 2023 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 24, 2023 
 
Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears 
to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Samantha Brittingham, filed this appeal from the 
Superior Court’s January 4, 2023 order affirming the decision of the Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board (“UIAB”).  We find no merit to the appeal and, therefore, 
affirm the Superior Court’s judgment. 
(2) 
Brittingham began working for Delmar Pizza and Pasta Restaurant, Inc. 
(“Delmar Pizza”) as a server in 2017.  In December 2021, Brittingham filed a claim 
2 
 
for unemployment benefits.  She alleged that Delmar Pizza had recently reduced her 
hours. 
(3) 
On January 27, 2022, a Department of Labor claims deputy concluded 
that Brittingham was ineligible for benefits because she was not unemployed under 
19 Del. C. § 3302(17).  Brittingham appealed that decision.   
(4) 
On April 4, 2022, the appeals referee held a telephonic hearing on 
Brittingham’s appeal.  The appeals referee heard testimony from Brittingham, her 
manager, and Delmar Pizza’s owner.  The appeals referee affirmed the claim 
deputy’s decision, finding that Brittingham was not unemployed under Section 
3302(17) and was therefore ineligible for benefits.  Brittingham appealed the appeals 
referee’s decision to the UIAB. 
(5) 
On May 18, 2022, the UIAB held a review hearing.   The UIAB 
affirmed the appeals referee’s decision, concluding that Brittingham did not meet 
the definition of unemployed under Section 3302(17) and was ineligible for benefits.  
Brittingham appealed the UIAB’s decision to the Superior Court. 
(6) 
In an order dated January 4, 2023, the Superior Court affirmed the 
UIAB’s decision.  The Superior Court held that the UIAB did not err in concluding 
that Brittingham was not unemployed under Section 3302(17).  This appeal 
followed. 
3 
 
(7) 
This Court’s review of an appeal from the UIAB to the Superior Court 
is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence in the record to 
support the UIAB’s findings and whether such findings are free from legal error.1  
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 
adequate to support a conclusion.2  Like the Superior Court, this Court considers the 
record in the light most favorable to the party prevailing on the UIAB appeal.3  We 
do not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make our own 
factual findings.4 
(8) 
On appeal, Brittingham challenges the determination that she was 
ineligible for benefits after Delmar Pizza reduced her hours in December 2021.  She 
also challenges the UIAB’s handling of two other claims she filed.    
(9) 
There was substantial evidence to support the UIAB’s finding that 
Brittingham was ineligible for benefits.  Section 3302(17) provides: 
“Unemployment” exists and an individual is “unemployed” in any 
week during which the individual performs no services and with respect 
to which no wages are payable to the individual, or in any week of less 
than full-time work if the wages payable to the individual with respect 
to such week are less than the individual’s weekly benefit amount plus 
whichever is the greater of $10 or 50% of the individual’s weekly 
benefit amount.  The Department shall prescribe regulations applicable 
to unemployed individuals making such distinctions in the procedures 
as to total unemployment, part-total unemployment, partial 
 
1 Thompson v. Christiana Care Health System, 25 A.3d 778, 782 (Del. 2011). 
2 Oceanport Indus., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994). 
3 Thompson, 25 A.3d at 782. 
4 Id. 
4 
 
unemployment of individuals attached to their regular jobs and other 
forms of short-time work as the Department deems necessary. 
 
The Unemployment Insurance Regulations define a “partially unemployed 
individual” as “an employee who, during any given week, is still employed by his 
or her employer but worked less than his or her regular full-time hours because of 
the lack of full-time work.”5 
(10) During the hearing before the appeals referee, Brittingham testified that 
Employer hired her in 2017 to work full-time.  She submitted several pay stubs from 
late 2019 reflecting that she had worked forty hours per week.  But Brittingham also 
testified that Employer had taken her off the schedule in December 2020 and did not 
call her back to work until April 2021.  The pay stubs Brittingham submitted from 
November 2021 and December 2021 reflected that she generally worked less than 
twenty hours per week.  Beginning in late December 2021 Brittingham’s pay stubs 
reflected that she worked less than ten hours per week.   
(11) Employer’s owner testified that all employees, including Brittingham, 
were hired to work as needed.  Brittingham’s manager testified that she gave 
Brittingham the day shifts she had available.  There were night shifts available, but 
Brittingham could not work nights.  According to the owner, Brittingham had 
 
5 19 Del. Admin. C. § 1202-22.1. 
5 
 
previously worked nights and was able to work thirty to forty hours per week then.  
Brittingham did not dispute that she could not regularly work nights.   
(12) Giving appropriate deference to the UIAB’s factual determinations and 
considering the record in the light most favorable to Delmar Pizza, we cannot 
conclude that the UIAB erred in finding that Brittingham was ineligible to receive 
unemployment benefits. The record contains substantial evidence to support the 
UIAB’s determination that Brittingham did not meet the definition of unemployed 
under Section 3302(17) because she was not guaranteed a minimum number of hours 
when she was hired.   
(13) Brittingham’s remaining arguments relate to different claims she filed 
with the UIAB.  One claim appears to arise from an injury she suffered while 
working in August 2021.  The UIAB did not address this claim in resolving 
Brittingham’s December 2021 claim.  It is unclear if the UIAB ever resolved this 
claim.  In any event, Brittingham’s August 2021 claim is outside the scope of this 
appeal. 
(14)   The other claim arises from a claims deputy’s determination in May 
2022 that Brittingham was disqualified from receiving benefits for one year because 
she had falsely reported her wages in 2020 and 2021.  After Brittingham twice failed 
to appear for a hearing before an appeals referee, the UIAB affirmed the appeals 
referee’s affirmance of the claims deputy’s decision and dismissal of Brittingham’s 
6 
 
appeal.  The Superior Court affirmed the UIAB’s decision on February 22, 2023.  
Brittingham did not file a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s February 22, 
2023 decision and cannot challenge that decision in this appeal. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice