Case Title: Burton, et al. v. State of Delaware MERB, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 622, 2013

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2014-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
BRUCE BURTON, RANDALL 
§ 
DOTSON, GUY FOWLER, MARK 
§ 
RISPOLI, ROLAND WILEY,  
§ 
No. 622, 2013 
JOHN ENDRES, THOMAS SECORD, § 
and MICHAEL LITTLE, 
§ 
 
 
 
 
§  
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
Appellants Below- 
§  
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
Appellants, 
§  
for New Castle County 
 
 
§  
v.   
 
§  
No.  N12A-11-001  
 
§  
 
 
§  
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, MERIT  
§ 
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD, 
§ 
and DELAWARE DEPARTMENT 
§ 
OF CORRECTION, 
§ 
 
§  
 
Appellees Below- 
§ 
 
 
Appellees. 
§ 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  January 29, 2014 
Decided:  March 21, 2014 
 
 
Before BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices.  
 
O R D E R 
On this 21st day of March 2014, it appears to the Court that:  
(1)  Appellants-Below/Appellants Bruce Burton, Randall Dotson, Guy 
Fowler, Mark Rispoli, Roland Wiley, John Endres, Thomas Secord, and Michael 
Little (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from a Superior Court Opinion and Order 
affirming the decision of the Merit Employee Relations Board (“MERB”) in favor 
of the State of Delaware and the Delaware Department of Corrections (the 
2 
“Department”).  Appellants raise two claims on appeal.  First, Appellants claim 
that the MERB erred when it found that the Department could repost a job posting 
to include equivalent experience after it found that the Department violated Merit 
Rules.  Second, Appellants contend that the MERB erred when it allowed a job 
candidate to remain in the position on a temporary basis after it found that he was 
not qualified for the position as posted.  We find no merit to Appellants claims and 
affirm.   
(2)  In 2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) posted an 
opening for a Correctional Security Superintendent at the James T. Vaughn 
Correctional Center.  The job requirements for the position specifically mandated 
at least three years as a Correctional Lieutenant, at least two years as a Correctional 
Staff Lieutenant, or at least one year as a Correctional Captain.  The requirements 
did not state that equivalent experience would serve to qualify a candidate.  
Appellants, who are all employed with the Department as a Correctional 
Lieutenant, Correctional Staff Lieutenant, or Correctional Captain, applied for the 
open position.1  A selection committee (the “Committee”) received eighteen 
applications.  After conducting interviews of each applicant, the Committee 
selected John Brennan.  Prior to this promotion, Brennan held the position of 
                                          
 
1 Appellant Little is a Legal Services Administrator and did not apply for the Correctional 
Security Superintendent position but stated that he would have if he knew that equivalent 
experience was sufficient to be considered.  
3 
Trainer/Educator III at the Department’s Training Academy.  Although Brennan is 
a sworn officer and holds the titular rank of Captain, he is not a Watch 
Commander, Shift Commander, or Unit Commander.  It has been the policy of the 
Department to consider equivalent experience when selecting applicants.  
(3)  Following the announcement of Brennan’s promotion, Appellants filed a 
grievance under Merit Rule 18.5.  They alleged that the Department violated the 
Merit Rules by promoting a candidate who was not qualified.  The MERB found 
the job requirements for the Correctional Security Superintendent did not include 
equivalent experience.  As a result, Brennan was not qualified to apply for the 
position.  The MERB ordered the Department to repost the position but allowed 
the Department to modify the position description with OMB to include equivalent 
experience.  The MERB also allowed Brennan to remain as Acting Correctional 
Security Superintendent.  But if Brennan reapplied for the position, the Committee 
could not consider his experience as acting superintendent.  The Appellants 
appealed the decision of the MERB to the Superior Court, which affirmed.2  This 
appeal followed.  
(4)  This Court’s review of an administrative agency’s decision is the same 
as the court below.3  We review the decision of the MERB “to determine whether 
                                          
 
2 Burton v. Merit Emp. Relations Bd., C.A. No.N12A-11-001 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 18, 2013).   
3 Kopicko v. State Dep’t of Servs. for Children, Youth & their Families, 846 A.2d 238, 2004 WL 
691901, at *2 (Del. 2004). 
4 
[it] acted within its statutory authority, whether it properly interpreted and applied 
the applicable law, whether it conducted a fair hearing, and whether its decision is 
based on sufficient substantial evidence and is not arbitrary.”4  Substantial 
evidence is defined as “such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 
adequate to support a conclusion.”5  Questions of law are reviewed de novo.6  We 
also give judicial deference to “an administrative agency’s construction of its own 
rules in recognition of its expertise in a given field.”7  Such construction will only 
be reversed when it is “clearly wrong.”8 
(5)  The MERB has the statutory authority to “exercise broad remedial 
powers” when resolving state employee grievances and complaints.9  Included in 
this authority is the ability of the MERB to “make employees whole” following “a 
misapplication of any provision of . . . the [State of Delaware] Merit Rules.”10  
Further, “[t]he State has the exclusive right to manage its operations and direct 
employees except as specifically modified by [the Merit] Rules.”11   
                                          
 
4 Avallone v. State/Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs. (DHSS), 14 A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2011) 
(alteration in original) (quoting Hopson v. McGinnes, 391 A.2d 187, 189 (Del. 1978)). 
5 Stanford v. State Merit Emp. Relations Bd., 44 A.3d 923, 2012 WL 1549811, at *3 (Del. 2012) 
(quoting Avallone, 14 A.3d at 570). 
6 Avallone, 14 A.3d at 570 (citing Person–Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159, 1161 
(Del. 2009)).  
7 Stanford, 2012 WL 1549811, at *3 (quoting Ward v. Dep’t of Elections, 977 A.2d 900, 2009 
WL 2244413, at *1 (Del. 2009)).  
8 Id. (quoting Ward, 2009 WL 2244413, at *1).  
9 Avallone, 14 A.3d at 572. 
10 29 Del. C. § 5931(a).  
11 Del. Merit R. 1.4. 
5 
(6)  Appellants argue that the MERB erred when it allowed the Department 
to repost the Correctional Security Superintendent position with an experience-
equivalency provision in the posting.  Although Appellants agree that the MERB 
properly found that Brennan was not qualified for the position, they argue that the 
Department should not be allowed to modify the position before reposting it.     
(7)  Appellants’ arguments lack merit for two reasons.  First, Appellants fail 
to provide any authority that precludes the MERB from resolving their grievance 
in such a manner.  Without a modicum of contrary authority, Appellants fail to 
demonstrate that the decision of the MERB is erroneous, let alone clearly wrong.  
Second, Appellants do not provide any authority that would prohibit the 
Department from modifying the position description.  Rather, the Department may 
modify the position requirements to include equivalent experience under OMB 
procedures.  Because the decision of the MERB is merely requiring the 
Department to repost the Correctional Security Superintendent position, there is 
nothing to suggest that allowing the Department to revise the description is 
arbitrary or capricious.   
(8)  Appellants dispute this conclusion and contend that current hiring policy 
no longer includes the ability to hire based on equivalent experience.  The MERB 
specifically made a factual finding that equivalent experience may qualify a 
6 
candidate for a promotion within the Department.12  Because this finding is based 
on substantial evidence,13 it will not be disturbed on appeal.  Therefore, 
Appellant’s claim that MERB could not allow the Department to repost the 
position after revising the position description is without merit.  
(9)  Appellants next argue that the MERB erred when it allowed Brennan to 
remain in the Correctional Security Superintendent position on an acting basis 
while the Department reposted the position.  The Superior Court found that 
Appellants waived this argument because they did not raise it at the MERB 
hearing.  But Appellants argue that they could not have raised it because they could 
not have foreseen the MERB decision.  The record demonstrates that the 
Appellants’ grievances sought to require the Department to reconsider their 
applications through a reposting of the position.  At no point did Appellants 
request that the MERB remove Brennan from his position.  Thus, Appellant’s 
second claim is waived for failure to raise it in the MERB proceeding.14 
(10)  Even if Appellants’ second claim were not waived, it is nonetheless 
without merit.  Merit Rule 10.1 specifically provides that “[l]imited term 
appointments are permitted when a Merit vacancy exists that is not of a continuing 
                                          
 
12 Burton v. Dep’t of Corrections, No. 12-03-540, at 4 (Del. Merit Emp. Relations Bd. Oct. 3, 
2012).   
13 The Department introduced evidence of seven candidates qualified for a position based on 
their equivalent experience from 2008 through 2011.  Further, the Department selected two 
candidates for positions based on their equivalent experience.   
14 See Sup. Ct. R. 8 (providing that “[o]nly questions fairly presented to the trial court may be 
presented for review”).  
7 
nature, but is projected to exceed 90 days.”15  Although the Merit Rules also 
require a candidate for promotion to meet the job requirements,16 the MERB 
invalidated Brennan’s promotion.  Instead, he is serving in that position as Acting 
Correctional Security Superintendent.  Because this decision is not a promotion 
and because the MERB has broad discretion to resolve grievances between 
employees and the Department, Appellants’ second claim lacks merit. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED.  
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
 
                                          
 
15 Del. Merit R. 10.1.  
16 Del. Merit R. 10.4.