Title: Mergliano v. Rehoboth Donut Shop, Inc.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
FRANCES MERGLIANO, 
 
Appellant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
REHOBOTH DONUT SHOP, INC., 
 
Appellee Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 362, 2013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Sussex County 
§  C.A. No. S13A-03-002 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  September 3, 2013 
Decided:  September 12, 2013 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 12th day of September 2013, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm, and the record below, it appears to 
the Court: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Frances Mergliano, filed this appeal from the Superior 
Court’s decision, dated June 24, 2014, which affirmed the decision of the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“the Board”) denying Mergliano’s claim 
for unemployment benefits.  The appellee, Rehoboth Donut Shop, Inc. 
(“Employer”), filed a motion to affirm the judgment below on the ground that it is 
manifest on the face of Mergliano’s opening brief that her appeal is without merit.  
We agree and affirm. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Mergliano worked for Employer from April 
2009 until July 9, 2012, when she was discharged.  Mergliano filed a claim for 
unemployment benefits.  A Claims Deputy reviewed Mergliano’s claim and 
determined that she was not entitled to benefits because she had been terminated 
for just cause.  Mergliano appealed that ruling.  An Appeals Referee held a hearing 
on September 13, 2012.  The Appeals Referee reversed the Claims Deputy’s 
determination.  Employer then appealed to the Board.  The Board held a hearing on 
March 8, 2013 and reversed the Appeals Referee’s ruling on the ground that 
Employer had terminated Mergliano for just cause.  On Mergliano’s appeal from 
the Board’s decision, the Superior Court concluded that the Board’s findings and 
conclusions were free from legal error and were supported by substantial evidence 
in the record.  Accordingly, the Superior Court affirmed the Board’s denial of 
unemployment benefits.  Mergliano appeals that ruling. 
 
(3) 
Mergliano’s sole issue on appeal is that the Board committed legal 
error when it conducted a de novo review of the Appeals Referee’s decision and 
allowed Employer to presented new witnesses and evidence at the hearing before 
the Board.  Mergliano suggests that Employer’s evidence to the Board should have 
been limited to the evidence that was presented to the Appeals Referee.  Employer, 
on the other hand, contends that this issue is controlled by settled Delaware law, 
which allows the Board to hear additional evidence at the Board hearing level. 
 
3
 
(4) 
We agree with Employer’s position.  Section 3320 of Title 19 of the 
Delaware Code “affords the Board substantial latitude as to what evidence it may 
consider in reaching a decision.  The Board may base its decision on evidence 
previously submitted to the Appeals Referee or on new, additional evidence.”1  
Accordingly, we find no legal error in the Board’s admission of evidence that was 
not previously presented by Employer to the Appeals Referee.  Moreover, after 
careful consideration, we find that the Board’s conclusion that Mergliano was 
terminated for just cause is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal 
error.2  Accordingly, we affirm. 
  
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
                                                 
1 Robbins v. Deaton, 1994 WL 45344 (Del. Super. Feb. 7, 1994).  See also Filanowski v. Port 
Contractors, Inc., 2007 WL 2229017 (Del. Super. Jan. 2, 2007). 
2 Edmonds v. Kelly Services, 2012 WL 4033377 (Del. Sept. 12, 2012).