Title: Butler v. Safe Check East, Inc., et al.

State: delaware

Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
CHARLES BUTLER,  
 
Claimant/Appellant Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
SAFE CHECK EAST, INC. et al., 
 
          Employer/Appellees Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 44, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for New Castle County 
§  C.A. No. N09A-12-013 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
                                      Submitted: May 27, 2011 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: July 14, 2011 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER and JACOBS, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 14th day of July 2011, upon consideration of the opening brief 
and the record below,1 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The claimant-appellant, Charles Butler, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s December 31, 2010 order affirming the decision of the 
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the “UIAB” or the “Board”) in 
favor of the employer-appellee, Safe Check East, Inc. (“Safe Check”).  We 
find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
                                                 
1 Because neither Safe Check nor the UIAB filed an answering brief, the Court informed 
the parties by letter dated May 3, 2011 that this matter would be decided on the basis of 
the opening brief and the record below. 
 
2
 
(2) 
The record before us reflects that Butler began his employment 
with Safe Check in June 2004 as Director of Business Development.  By 
letter dated August 7, 2009, Ava Kanaras, Safe Check’s Chief Executive 
Officer, terminated Butler’s employment on the grounds that Butler had sent 
e-mails to a co-worker that created a hostile work environment for the 
women at Safe Check and that constituted insubordination.2  On August 9, 
2009, a letter was sent to Kanaras from Butler’s e-mail address apologizing 
for the offensive language contained in the e-mails.  On that same date, 
Butler applied for unemployment insurance benefits with the Department of 
Labor.   
 
(3) 
On August 18, 2009, the Claims Deputy determined that Butler 
was disqualified from receiving benefits because he had been terminated for 
just cause.  Butler then filed an appeal with the Appeals Referee.  An 
administrative assistant with Safe Check testified on behalf of the company 
by telephone.  She had no first-hand knowledge of the e-mails.  When asked 
if he had written the e-mails, Butler testified that he could not “say for sure,” 
but that he had “no memory of sending these e-mails to any co-worker or 
subordinate.”  He further denied “everything that the employer is saying.”  
The Appeals Referee reversed the decision of the Claims Deputy on the 
                                                 
2 The e-mails, sent during May and July of 2009, attacked Safe Check’s CEO in vulgar, 
sexist language. 
 
3
ground that the testimony of the administrative assistant constituted hearsay.  
Safe Check then appealed the decision of the Appeals Referee to the UIAB. 
 
(4) 
At the hearing before the UIAB, Kanaras and Butler’s former 
supervisor at Safe Check testified on behalf of Safe Check.  Kanaras testified 
that she warned Butler in January 2009 about offensive comments he had 
made concerning Safe Check employees, stating that such behavior “would 
no longer be tolerated.”  The former supervisor testified that he had heard 
Butler make insulting comments about female employees of Safe Check and 
that he had recommended to Kanaras that Butler be terminated for that 
reason.  The Board was presented with evidence that Butler had received a 
copy of Safe Check’s employee handbook, which stated that “disrespect of 
management” was “absolutely prohibited.”  The Board reversed the decision 
of the Appeals Referee, finding that Butler had been terminated for just 
cause.     
 
(5) 
In this appeal, Butler claims that the Superior Court’s decision 
must be reversed because a) there is insufficient evidence in the record that 
he was the author of the offensive e-mails; and b) the Superior Court 
improperly considered the “apology” e-mail, which was not part of the 
record before the UIAB.   
 
4
 
(6) 
 An employer has “just cause” to terminate an employee when 
the employee’s conduct constitutes a “willful or wanton” act that violates the 
employer’s interests, the employee’s duties or the employer’s standard of 
conduct.3  Willful or wanton conduct can be proven by conduct amounting 
to a “reckless indifference” to established and acceptable workplace 
performance.4  In order to prove that an employee was terminated for “just 
cause,” the employer must demonstrate that there was a policy in existence 
that prohibited the employee’s conduct and that the employee was aware of 
the policy.5 
 
(7) 
The Superior Court’s standard of review in an 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.6  Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable 
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.7  The Superior Court 
does not independently weigh the evidence, determine questions of 
                                                 
3 Del. Code Ann. tit. 19, §3314(2); Avon Products, Inc. v. Wilson, 513 A.2d 1315, 1317 
(Del. 1986). 
4 Roshon v. Appoquinimink School Dist., Del. Supr., No. 178, 2010, Jacobs, J. (Oct. 4, 
2010) (citing Tuttle v. Mellon Bank of DE, 659 A.2d 786, 789 (Del. Super. 1995)). 
5 Id. 
6 UIAB v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del. 1975). 
7 Oceanport Ind., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994). 
 
5
credibility or make its own factual findings.8  The standard of review 
applicable to this Court is the same as that applicable to the Superior Court.9 
 
(8) 
We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, including 
the transcripts of the hearings before the Appeals Referee and the Board.  
Contrary to Butler’s first claim, we conclude that there was sufficient 
evidence in the record before the Board that the offensive e-mails were sent 
by him.  It is undisputed that the e-mails were sent from Butler’s computer 
and, even though others may have had access to his computer, the Board was 
free to reject Butler’s explanation that he did not remember sending the 
offensive e-mails and that someone who wanted him fired must have done it.   
 
(9) 
We need not decide Butler’s second claim that the Board 
improperly considered the “apology” e-mail because, even without that 
letter, there was substantial evidence before the Board to support its decision 
that Butler was terminated for “just cause.”10  There is no dispute that Butler 
previously was warned to stop making offensive comments about others in 
the workplace.  The vulgar e-mails subsequently sent from Butler’s 
computer clearly were prohibited by the employee handbook and against the 
employer’s interests.  The only question for resolution by the Board was 
                                                 
8 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965). 
9 Id. 
10 Interestingly, Butler concedes that he wrote the letter in his opening brief, but states 
that he did so solely to protect his interest in monies owed to him by Safe Check. 
 
6
who sent the e-mails.  The Board obviously did not credit Butler’s 
explanation that he did not remember sending them and that some unknown 
person who wanted him fired had done it.  This Court will not re-visit the 
Board’s findings in that regard.  As such, the Superior Court’s judgment 
affirming the Board’s decision must itself be affirmed.          
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Carolyn Berger 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice