IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

GASPARE FERRANTE, ) 

) 

Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) C.A. No. N14A-09-010FWW

) 

) 

DELAWARE PARK CASINO & ) 

UNEMPLOYENT INSURANCE )

APPEALS BOARD, )

)

Appellees. ) 

Submitted: December 10, 2014

 Decided: March 12, 2015

Upon Appellant’s Appeal of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s 

Decision: 

AFFIRMED.

OPINION AND ORDER 

Gaspare Ferrante, pro se, 1026 Oaklyn Court, Vorhees, New Jersey 08043, 

Appellant.

Paige J. Schmittinger, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, 820 North French

Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801; Attorney for Appellee Unemployment 

Insurance Appeal UIAB.

Wendy K. Voss, Esquire, and Janine L. Hochberg, Esquire, 1313 North Market 

Street, 6th Floor, P.O. Box 951, Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0951, Attorneys for 

Appellee Delaware Park Management Company, LLC. 

WHARTON, J.
2

I. INTRODUCTION

Gaspare Ferrante (“Appellant”) filed a Notice of Appeal on September 19,

2014 requesting judicial review of the September 9, 2014 decision of the 

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“UIAB”). Appellant contends that the 

UIAB erred in upholding his termination for just cause and denying him 

unemployment insurance benefits.

In considering the appeal, the Court must determine whether the UIAB’s 

decision to uphold Appellant’s termination and deny Appellant unemployment 

insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. 

Upon consideration of the pleadings before the Court and the record below, the 

Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the UIAB’s ruling and the 

UIAB did not err in reaching its decision. Accordingly, the UIAB’s decision is 

AFFIRMED.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL CONTEXT

Appellant was employed as a full-time Games Dealer by Delaware Park 

Management Company, LLC (“Delaware Park”) from March 16, 2012 until April 

22, 2014.1

 Appellant applied for unemployment insurance through the Department 

of Labor beginning April 27, 2014.2

 In a Notice of Determination, on May 22, 

2014, Appellant was notified that he was disqualified from receiving benefits 

 1 See June 19, 2014 Tr., D.I. 7, at 5:15-6:8.

2 R. at 32.
3

under 19 Del. C. § 3314(2) because he was terminated for just cause.

3 Appellant 

appealed the determination and a hearing was scheduled before an Appeals 

Referee.4

 

At the June 19, 2014 hearing before an Appeals Referee, a Delaware Park 

Representative (“Representative”) and Appellant testified. Before hearing 

testimony, the Appeals Referee stated that the “issue on appeal is whether or not 

the claimant was discharged from work for just cause in connection with the work 

and would be disqualified from the receipt of unemployment benefits.”5

 

Representative testified that Appellant was employed as a full-time Games 

Dealer at Delaware Park from March 16, 2012 until April 22, 2014.6

 

Representative stated that Appellant was suspended pending an investigation of 

misconduct on April 16, 2014 after a Delaware Park patron dropped a hundred 

dollar bill on the casino floor and Appellant allegedly picked up the bill and put it 

in his pocket.7

 

Representative testified that Delaware Park policy requires that any 

Delaware Park employee who finds money on the casino floor “is to immediately 

bring that money to a security officer or a cage supervisor. [Appellant] didn’t.”8

 

 3 R. at 32.

4 R. at 35-36. 

5 June 19, 2014 Tr. at 3: 23-4:1.

6 Id. at 5: 15-6:8.

7 Id. at 9:11-19.

8 Id. at 9: 20-22.
4

Representative stated that late in Appellant’s shift, he reported finding money on 

the casino floor to a Delaware Gaming Enforcement Official (“Gaming Official”) 

and Appellant turned in a twenty dollar bill.

9

 Representative testified that, upon 

being interviewed by Delaware Park management, Appellant admitted that he had 

kept the remainder of the money for himself.

10 Representative asserted that 

Delaware Park management evaluated the situation and found that Appellant had 

violated Delaware Park Standard of Conduct Number 1111 prohibiting vandalism 

and misappropriation.

12 Representative stated that due to the severity of the 

situation, Appellant was immediately dismissed after a brief investigation of the 

incident.

13 

Additionally, Representative admitted into evidence several documents at 

the hearing. Representative submitted a copy of the Standards of Conduct14 and 

Appellant’s executed “Employee Acknowledgment Form” in which he 

acknowledged receipt of the Standards of Conduct on April 19, 2012.15 

Representative also admitted into evidence an April 22, 2014 “Employee 

 9 Id. at 9: 22-25.

10 Id. at 10: 1-2. 

11 See R. at 18 (Standard of Conduct Number 11 provides: “[t]heft, vandalism misappropriation, 

or willful destruction of employees’, guests’ or Company property or destruction / damage of 

any value resulting from negligence” is an act that “may be considered cause for immediate 

dismissal.”).

12 June 19, 2014 Tr. at 10: 8-13.

13 Id.

14 R. at 49.

15 R. at 50. 
5

Counseling Notice” prepared by Delaware Park management that specified that 

Appellant violated Standard of Conduct Number 11.16 The Notice details the 

infraction, memorializes Appellants admission of violating Standard of Conduct 

Number 11 and notes that Appellant’s termination became effective on April 22, 

2014.17 

Additionally, Representative entered into evidence an “Incident Report” 

prepared by Delaware Park management the same day as the incident.

18 The 

Report indicates that video surveillance of the casino floor showed that a patron 

dropped a hundred dollar bill on the floor and that Appellant picked up the bill and 

placed it in his left pants pocket.19 The Report also indicates that Delaware Park 

management received a call from a Gaming Official that Appellant had turned in a 

twenty dollar bill and stated that he had found it on the casino floor.20 The Report 

specifies that during an interview with Delaware Park management Appellant 

initially stated that he had found a twenty dollar bill on the casino floor and held 

onto it until he could turn it in to security; however, upon being informed that 

Delaware Park management would view the surveillance video, Appellant 

admitted that he had found a hundred dollar bill and had turned in a twenty dollar 

 16 R. at 51. 

17 Id.

18 R. at 52.

19 Id.

20 Id.
6

bill because he wanted to keep the rest for himself.21 The Report indicates that 

when asked to return the hundred dollar bill, Appellant retrieved it from his right 

sock.22 

Appellant testified that he eventually returned the money to the appropriate 

authority and that he is the victim of gambling.23 He also testified that no member 

of Delaware Park management read the standards of conduct booklet to him when 

it was provided to him and that if someone had explained it to him, he would have 

followed the procedures set forth in the booklet.24

The Appeals Referee determined that Appellant was terminated for just 

cause and is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to 19 

Del. C. § 3314(2).25 In the decision, the Referee determined that “an action of an 

employee indicating dishonesty and untrustworthiness will justify discharge of that 

employee. ‘When an Employer, because of an employee’s wrongful conduct, can 

no longer place the necessary faith and trust in an employee, the Employer is 

entitled to dismiss such employee without penalty.’”26 On July 3, 2014, Appellant 

appealed the Referee’s decision to the UIAB and indicated that he misunderstood 

 21 Id.

22 Id.

23 June 19, 2014 Tr. at 10: 20-22.

24 Id. at 11: 7-11.

25 R. at 53. 

26 R. at 55 (citing Barisa v. Charitable Research Found., Inc., 287 A.2d 679, 682 (Del. Super. 

1972) (alteration in original)). 
7

the accusations lodged against him and that he mistakenly returned a twenty dollar 

bill instead of the hundred dollar bill.27 

A. The UIAB’s Hearing 

The UIAB held a hearing on August 20, 2014.28 At the hearing, a UIAB

member informed the parties that the UIAB had reviewed the Referee’s decision as 

well as the documents submitted to the Referee.29 The UIAB also indicated that 

the purpose of the hearing was for the parties to submit any new evidence or raise 

arguments that had not been litigated before the Referee.30 

Appellant testified that the Referee’s decision was based upon false 

information because Appellant did not follow a patron and did not see the patron 

drop the hundred dollar bill and pick it up.31 Appellant also testified that “it was 

[his] misjudgment that night that [he] took the hundred dollars” but emphasized 

that he eventually returned the money.

32 Appellant acknowledged that he admitted 

to Delaware Park management that he took the hundred dollar bill and offered to 

donate his next two paychecks to a charity of the company’s choosing in lieu of 

being discharged.33 

 27 R. at 58. 

28 R. at 60.

29 Aug. 20, 2014 Tr. at 3: 20-25. 

30 Id. at 4: 1-4.

31 Id. at 4: 17-24.

32 Id. at 5: 10-11.

33 Id. at 5: 15-17.
8

Appellant testified that his English is very poor but admitted that his 

signature appears at the bottom of the Employee Counseling Notice dated April 22, 

201434 and stated “I violat[ed] company policy.”35 Appellant also admitted that his 

signature appears at the bottom of the Employee Acknowledgement Form.36 

Appellant also testified that he believes the Referee’s decision punished him twice 

for his mistake; he already lost his job that he loved and should not be punished 

again by being refused unemployment insurance benefits.37 Additionally, Peter 

Mitchell testified that he is “[Appellant’s] interpreter basically because 

[Appellant’s] English is very poor as you can tell. [Appellant] doesn’t understand 

a lot of the things on the paper.”38

Delaware Park elected to stand on the record below.39 Representative 

testified that there was no indication that Appellant ever had a problem 

understanding English or required an interpreter.40 

B. The UIAB’s Written Decision

In a decision that became final on September 19, 2014, by a majority vote, 

the UIAB affirmed the Referee’s decision and denied Appellant’s receipt of 

 34 Id. at 6: 4-5.

35 Id. at 6: 11-12. 

36 Id. at 6: 15-19.

37 Id. at 8: 19- 9: 6. 

38 Id. at 7: 3-5.

39 Id. at 7: 18-19.

40 Id. at 7: 23-8: 4. 
9

unemployment insurance benefits.41 The UIAB determined that “an employer has 

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a claimant was 

terminated for ‘just cause.’”42 The UIAB defined “just cause” as “a ‘willful 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.’”43 The UIAB

further explained that “‘[w]illful and wanton conduct is that which is evidenced by 

either conscious action, reckless indifference leading to a deviation from 

established and acceptable workplace performance.”’44 The UIAB noted that it is 

the UIAB’s function to weigh the evidence and determine witness credibility.45 

The UIAB found that Appellant’s actions constituted willful and wanton 

misconduct when Appellant took the hundred dollar bill from the casino floor and 

turned in a twenty dollar bill to the Gaming Official.

46 The UIAB determined that 

Appellant’s conduct was such that Delaware Park need not place further faith and 

trust in Appellant.47 Furthermore, the UIAB found that Appellant’s argument that 

he inadvertently mixed up the bills was not credible.48 Based upon these findings, 

the UIAB affirmed the Referee’s decision that Appellant was terminated for just 

 41 R. at 70.

42 Id.

43 Id. (quoting Avon Products, Inc. v. Wilson, 513 A.2d 1315, 1317 (Del. 1986)).

44 Id. (quoting MRPC Financial Mgmt. LLC v. Carter, 2003 WL 21517977, at *4 (Del. Super. 

June 20, 2003)). 

45 Id.

46 Id.

47 Id.

48 Id.
10

cause and, therefore, Appellant was disqualified from receiving unemployment 

benefits under Delaware law.49 

III. THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

Appellant essentially asserts the same arguments in his Opening Brief as 

were presented to the UIAB. Appellant contends that he made an honest mistake 

in turning in a twenty dollar bill instead of the hundred dollar bill; that he did not 

see anyone drop the bill and did not immediately pick it up but that “[t]he bill was 

just laying there for anyone to pick up;” that despite his request at the hearing, the 

casino did not provide the video of the incident; and that his English is poor and 

that he “probably did not understand the Delaware Park’s Employee Handbook as 

[he] should have.”50 Additionally, Appellant asserts that “[He] never brought up 

the fact of Delaware Park taking away [his] license during [his] previous appeals. 

However, [Delaware Park has] prevented [him] from finding gainful employment 

[by taking the license]” (“License Issue)”.51 

Counsel for Delaware Park argues that the UIAB’s decision should be 

upheld because it is supported by substantial evidence and is free of legal error.52 

Specifically, Counsel for Delaware Park argues that the UIAB correctly 

 49 Id.

50 Appellant’s Opening Br., D.I. 6, at 1-2.

51 Id. at 2. 

52 Appellee Delaware Park’s Answering Br., D.I. 9, at 10.
11

determined that Delaware Park had just cause to terminate Appellant53 and the 

UIAB acted within its discretion to reject Appellant’s claim that he made an honest 

mistake.

54 Counsel for Delaware Park contends that Appellant’s argument that he 

does not understand English well is meritless because Appellant responded to 

questions at the hearing in English, Appellant did not ask for a translation of the 

employee handbook and be able to discern the difference between a twenty dollar 

bill and a hundred dollar bill is not a matter of linguistic interpretation but 

numerical recognition.

55 

Counsel for Delaware Park also argues that Appellant has waived the right 

to appeal the License Issue because Appellant admits that he did not raise the issue 

before the UIAB.

56 Counsel for Delaware Park alternatively argues that,

considered on the merits, Appellant’s License Issue argument fails because 

[employee gaming] licenses do not belong to individual 

employees, but rather are considered property of the 

Lottery Office. Pursuant to state regulations, Delaware 

Park is required to return employee licenses to the 

Lottery Office when an employee is terminated. See, 

e.g., 10 Del. Admin. C. § 203-14.0 (‘[T]he license is the 

property of the Lottery and shall be returned to the 

Lottery when the licensee’s employment is either 

terminated involuntarily by the employer or terminated at 

the request of the employee.’).57 

 53 Id. at 10-11.

54 Id. at 12.

55 Id. at 11 n.2. 

56 Id. at 13.

57 Id.
12

Counsel for the UIAB indicated that the UIAB does not intend to participate

in the appeal because the UIAB “has no cognizable interest in seeking to have its 

rulings sustained.”58

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The UIAB’s decision must be affirmed so long as it is supported by 

substantial evidence and free from legal error.59 Substantial evidence is that which 

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.60 While a 

preponderance of evidence is not necessary, substantial evidence means “more 

than a mere scintilla.”61 Questions of law are reviewed de novo62 but because the 

Court does not weigh evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own 

factual findings, it must uphold the decision of the UIAB unless the Court finds 

that the UIAB “acts arbitrarily or capriciously” or its decision “exceeds the bounds 

of reason.”63 

IV. DISCUSSION

In this appeal, Appellant raises arguments challenging the validity of the 

UIAB’s decision. Several of Appellant’s arguments were raised before the UIAB 

at the August 20, 2014 hearing. However, Appellant’s License Issue argument was 

 58 Letter from Appellee UIAB, D.I. 10, at 1.

59 Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. of Dep’t. of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308, 309 (Del. 1975).

60 Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. Super. 1994) (citing 

Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610, 614 (Del. 1981)).

61 Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102, 1104 (Del. 1988).

62 Ward v. Dep’t of Elections, 2009 WL 2244413, at *1 (Del. Super. July 27, 2009).

63 PAL of Wilmington v. Graham, 2008 WL 2582986, at *4 (Del. Super. June 18, 2008).
13

not raised before the UIAB. The Court must examine the License Issue in a 

different context than it examines the issues presented to the UIAB. Therefore, the 

Court considers the License Issue first. 

A. The Court Must Not Consider the Merits of Arguments Not 

Raised Before the UIAB.

When considering Appellant’s arguments on appeal, the Court is limited to 

the record that existed at the time of the UIAB’s decision.64 Therefore, to the 

extent than an issue was not previously raised before the UIAB, the Court cannot 

consider it now on the merits.

65

Appellant’s License Issue argument that he cannot gain employment because 

Delaware Park took his gaming license was not raised before the UIAB. 

Furthermore, in Appellant’s Opening Brief, Appellant acknowledges that the 

License Issue has never been raised in a prior proceeding.

66 Therefore, the Court 

declines to address the merits of this argument. 

B. The UIAB’s Decision That Delaware Park Had Just Cause to 

Terminate Appellant is Supported by Substantial Evidence and 

Free of Legal Error.

Appellant’s remaining arguments seek to void the UIAB’s decision. 

However, Appellant does not argue that the decision lacks substantial evidentiary 

 64 See Hubbard v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 352 A.2d 761, 763 (Del. 1976) (“Upon 

appeal...the Superior Court is limited to consideration of the record which was before the 

administrative agency.”). 

65 Id. 

66 See Appellant’s Opening Br., at 2 (“I never brought up the fact of Delaware Park taking away 

my license during my previous appeals.”).
14

support or that the UIAB committed legal error. Instead, Appellant’s remaining 

arguments question the merits of the UIAB’s decision. The Court will not

reexamine the merits of the issues raised before the UIAB but, instead, reviews the 

UIAB’s decision for legal error and substantial evidence. 

Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 3314(2), 

[a]n individual shall be disqualified for [unemployment 

insurance] benefits:...(2) [f]or the week in which the 

individual was discharged from the individual's work for 

just cause in connection with the individual's work and 

for each week thereafter until the individual has been 

employed in each of 4 subsequent weeks (whether or not 

consecutive) and has earned wages in covered 

employment equal to not less than 4 times the weekly 

benefit amount.

Just cause for discharged includes a “willful 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.”67 Because the UIAB affirmed the Referee’s 

application of this standard and determined that Appellant was terminated for just 

cause, the Court cannot find that the UIAB committed legal error in denying 

Appellant unemployment insurance benefits. 

Furthermore, the UIAB’s finding that Appellant was terminated for just 

cause is supported by substantial evidence. The UIAB affirmed the Referee’s 

decision that Delaware Park had just cause to terminate Appellant based upon the 

 67 Majaya v. Sojourner’s Place, 2003 WL 21350542, at *4 (Del. Super. June 6, 2003). 
15

record before the Referee and the information presented at the UIAB’s additional 

hearing. Appellant presented no evidence other than his testimony to support the 

contention that he made an honest mistake. The UIAB, sitting as the trier of fact,

found that Appellant’s testimony that he inadvertently turned in a twenty dollar bill 

instead of the hundred dollar bill was not credible.68 Therefore, the UIAB acted 

within its discretion to reject that argument.69 Similarly, the UIAB acted within its 

discretion to reject Appellant’s argument that his poor English prevented him from 

understanding the allegations. 

Additionally, the other evidence presented before the Referee and the UIAB

supports the UIAB’s conclusion that Appellant was terminated for just cause. The 

Incident Report indicates that the incident was captured on video and the video 

shows that Appellant picked up at hundred dollar bill from the casino floor and 

turned in a twenty dollar bill.70 After initially denying that he found a hundred 

dollar bill, Appellant subsequently admitted that he picked up the hundred dollar 

bill and only turned in a twenty dollar bill.

71 Furthermore, Appellant admitted that 

he executed the “Employee Acknowledge Form” in which he acknowledged 

 68 R. at 70. 

69 See Tatum v. State, 941 A.2d 1009, 1011 (Del. 2007) (“The factfinder is solely responsible for 

judging the credibility of the witnesses and resolving conflicts in the evidence. In this case it was 

entirely within the [factfinder’s] discretion to credit [witness’] version of events.”).

70 R. at 52.

71 Id. 
16

receipt of the Standards of Conduct on April 19, 2012.72 Appellant further 

admitted that “it was [his] misjudgment that night that [he] took the hundred 

dollars”73 and also acknowledged that “[he] violat[ed] company policy.”74 

Therefore, the UIAB’s determination that Appellant violated Delaware Park 

Standards of Conduct was neither arbitrary and capricious nor unreasonable. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the UIAB’s decision is supported by substantial 

evidence.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the UIAB’s decision is supported by substantial 

evidence and free of legal error. Therefore, the decision of the UIAB is hereby 

AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________________

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton, Judge

 72 R. at 50. 

73 Aug. 20, 2014 Tr. at 5: 10-11.

74 Id. at 6: 11-12.