Case Title: Edmonds v. Kelly Services & UIAB

Citation: 

Docket Number: 387, 2012

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2012-09-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
IVAN EDMONDS,  
 
Employee/Appellant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
KELLY SERVICES and 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 
APPEAL BOARD,  
 
           Appellees Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 387, 2012 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N12A-02-001 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                         Submitted: August 3, 2012 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: September 12, 2012 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of September 2012, upon consideration of the opening 
brief and the record below,1 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The employee-appellant, Ivan Edmonds, filed an appeal from 
the Superior Court’s July 2, 2012 order affirming the decision of the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the “UIAB” or the “Board”), 
which affirmed the decision of the Appeals Referee denying Edmonds 
                                                 
1 Appellee Kelly Services did not file an answering brief.  Appellee Unemployment 
Insurance Appeal Board informed the Court on July 17, 2012 that it would not be filing 
an answering brief.  On July 23, 2012, the Court notified the parties that this appeal 
would be decided on the basis of the appellant’s opening brief and the record below. 
 
2
unemployment benefits.  We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we 
affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that Edmonds worked as a 
temporary employee at Wilmington Trust Company (the “Bank”) through 
Kelly Services.  From September 2010 through the beginning of June 2011, 
Edmonds worked in the Bank’s Accounts Payable Department.  The Bank 
terminated Edmonds from his employment on June 6, 2011 when it was 
discovered that he did not work on May 23rd, 24th or 27th of 2011, but 
submitted time cards for those days and received payment for those days.   
 
(3) 
Edmonds filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the 
Delaware Department of Labor.  On June 15, 2011, the Claims Deputy 
found that Edmonds had been discharged for cause and denied him 
unemployment benefits.  Edmonds then filed an appeal with the Appeals 
Referee.  Following two hearings in July and November 2011, the Referee 
agreed that Edmonds had been discharged for just cause and affirmed the 
decision of the Claims Deputy.2 
 
(4) 
Edmonds then appealed to the UIAB.  The hearing before the 
Board was held on January 11, 2012.  Edmonds’ position before the Board 
                                                 
2 After the Referee’s decision was issued on July 20, 2011, the UIAB remanded the case 
to the Referee for another hearing after accepting the employer’s excuse for failing to 
appear at the original hearing before the Referee.   
 
3
was that his former supervisor at the Bank was aware of his actions and told 
him that he would be paid for days he did not work.  The Board disagreed, 
finding that, as a temporary employee, Edmonds was not entitled to either 
paid vacation days or paid sick days.  Moreover, the Board found that 
Edmonds’ conduct amounted to “theft of time,” which was directly against 
the Bank’s interest and directly at odds with the standard of conduct 
applicable to an employee such as Edmonds.  As a result, the Board 
reasoned, Edmonds was terminated for just cause pursuant to Del. Code 
Ann. tit. 19, §3314(2) and, therefore, was not entitled to unemployment 
benefits.  The Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Board, resulting in 
the instant appeal. 
 
(5) 
In his appeal, Edmonds claims that he should not have been 
denied unemployment benefits because his former supervisor had always 
approved his timesheet, including payment for the dates he did not work. 
 
(6) 
The standard of review applicable to the Superior Court on 
appeal from a decision of the UIAB is whether there is substantial evidence 
in the record to support the Board’s findings and whether such findings are 
free from legal error.3  Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as 
                                                 
3 UIAB v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del. 1975). 
 
4
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.4  The 
Superior Court does not independently weigh the evidence, determine 
questions of credibility or make its own factual findings.5  The standard of 
review applicable to this Court is identical to the standard of review 
applicable to the Superior Court.6 
 
(7) 
In a discharge case, the employer has the burden of proving by 
a preponderance of the evidence that a claimant was terminated for “just 
cause.”7  “Just cause” is defined as a “wilful 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.”8   
 
(8) 
We have reviewed the entire record in this case, including the 
transcripts of the hearings before the Appeals Referee and the UIAB.  We 
conclude that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the 
Board’s finding that Edmonds engaged in a pattern of conduct in violation of 
the Bank’s interest as well as his expected standard of conduct as an 
employee of the Bank. As such, we conclude that the Board correctly 
determined that the Bank met its burden of establishing that Edmonds was 
terminated for just cause.   
                                                 
4 Oceanport Ind., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994). 
5 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965). 
6 Id. 
7 Avon Products, Inc. v. Wilson, 513 A.2d 1315, 1317 (Del. 1986). 
8 Id. 
 
5
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice