I N TH E S UP ERI O R CO URT O F TH E S TATE O F DELAW ARE

L I S A M A L A GO, :

:

A ppel l an t, : C. A

. No. K 16A

- 01- 001 J J C

v

. : I n an d F or K en t Cou n ty

:

UNE M P L OYM E

NT I NS URA

NCE :

A P P E A L S B OA RD, A

ND :

B US I NE S S I NT E RF A CE OF :

M A RYL A

ND, L L C :

:

A p pel l ees

. :

S u bm i tted: J u l y 1, 2 016

D eci ded: J u l y 1 2, 2016

U pon Con s ider ation of Appellan t’ s Appeal f

r om t h e U n em ploym en t I

n su r an ce

Appeal Boar d

- AF F I RM ED

O R D ER

AN D N O W T O W I T

, th i s 12 t h day of J u l y

, 2016, u pon con s i der ati on of t

h e

r ecor d an d th e br i ef

i n g by th e par

ti es

, I T AP PEARS TH AT :

1. B ef o r e th e Cou

r t i s t h e pr o s e appeal of A

p pel l an t L i s a M al ag o ( h er ei n af

ter

“ M al ag o”) f

r om th e d eci s i on of t he Un em pl oy m en t I n s u r an ce A p peal s B oar d

( h er ei n af ter “ th e B oar d” o r “ th e U I A B ”)

. M al ag o s ou g h t u n em p l oy m en t com pen s ati on

f r om h er em

pl oy er

, B u si n es s I n

ter f ace of Mar

y l an d, L L C ( he r e inaf

ter “ E m pl oy er ”)

,

af ter ter m i n ati on of h er em

p l oy m en t on A u g u s t 11, 2015. A f

ter a r ev i ew of th e r ecor d

an d th e par

ti es ’ s u bm i s s i on s

, th e Cou

r t af f i r m s th e d eci s i on of th e UI A B ’ s d eci s i on

.2. T h e ev i den ce pr es en ted at th e v ar i ou s l e v e l s th r ou g h th e adm

i n i s tr ati v e

pr oces s i s n ot i n d i s pu

te. M al ag o em ai l e d c o nf id en ti al em pl oy er i n f o r m ati on to a

per son ou

ts i de t h e com pan y

. Nam ely, M al ag o was s h own to be o n n o ti ce th at

E m pl oy er ’ s Code of E th i cs w as con f i den ti al i n f or m ati on

. S h e does n ot di s pu te th at s h e

em ai l ed i t to an ou

ts i de p ar ty

.

3. B as ed on t

h i s ev i den ce, t

h e Cl ai m s Depu

t y f ou n d th at E m

pl o y er h ad ju s t

ca us e to t er

m i n ate Mal ag o. T h er eaf

ter

, an A ppeal s Ref

er ee al s o f

o u n d th at M al ag o

was di s ch ar g ed wi th ju s t cau s e an d th er ef or e was di s qu al i f

i ed f r om r e c ei pt of

u n em pl o y m en t ben ef i ts

. F i n al l y

, af

ter a Decem

ber 2, 2015 h ear i n g

, th e UI A B af f i r m ed

th e Ref er ee’ s deci s i on

, f

i n di n g th at E m

pl oy er was ju sti f

i ed i n ter m i n ati n g M al ag o f

or

v i ol ati n g E m

pl oy er ’ s con f

i den ti al i ty pol i cy

. P u

r s u an t to 19 D el. C. § 3 314( 2)

, M al ag o

was th er ef

or e di s qu al i f

i ed f r om r ecei v i n g u

n em pl o y m en t ben ef i ts

. Robbi n s th en f

i l ed

a ti m el y appeal to th e S u

p er i or Cou r t pu r s u an t to 1 9 Del. C. § 3 323.

4. P u r s u an t to 19 Del. C

. § 3323( a)

, th e S u per i or Cou

r t’ s ju r i s d i cti on i s l i m

i ted

to a r ev i ew f

or er r or s of l aw, t og eth er wi t

h a l i m i ted f actu al r ev i ew. N a m e ly, t h e

r ev i ew i s “ l i m

i ted to th e qu es ti on of wh eth er th er e i s s u bs tan t i al ev i den ce i n th e r ecor d

to s u ppor t th e B oar d’ s f

i n di n g s an d wh eth er s u ch f i n di n g s ar e f

r ee f r om l eg al er

r or

. I n

s u ch an appeal

, th i s Cou r t does n ot wei g h t

h e ev i den ce, deter

m i n e qu es ti on s of

2cr edi bi l i ty

, or m ake i ts own f

actu al f i n di n g s

. ” 1

5. T h e B oar d appl i ed th e cor r ect l eg al s tan dar d bel ow. Nam el y

, 19 Del. C. §

3314( 2 ) pr o v i des th at an i n di v i du al i s di s qu al i f i ed f o r u n em pl oy m en t ben ef i ts i f h e or

s h e “ was di s ch ar g ed f

r om th e i n di v i du al ’ s w or

k f or ju s t cau s e i n con

n ecti on wi th t

h e

i n divid u a l’ s wor

k

. . . . ” I n th i s con

tex t, t h e b u r den of pr ov i n g ju s t cau s e i s on t h e

em pl oy er

. 2

6. T h e Cou

r t f i n ds su bs tan ti al ev i den ce on t

h e r ecor d th at Mal ag o v i ol ated

E m pl oy er ’ s con f

i d en ti al i ty pol i cy by em ai ling c on f i d en ti al m ater i al t o a f

or m er

em pl oy ee w ho no l on g er wor ked f or E m pl oy er

. E m

pl oy er ’ s pol i cy i n cl u ded a

pr oh i bi ti on ag ai n s t di s cl o s i n g an y s u ch i n f

or m ati on to th i r d par

ti es oth er th an f

or

“ appr ov ed bu s i n es s tr an s acti on s

. ” Mal ag o’ s def en s e was t

h at sh e s en

t th e docu m en t

to a f or m er em pl oy ee wh o sh e ex

pected to al r eady h av e h ad th e i n f o r m a t io n. E v en

th ou g h s u ch ci r cu

m s tan ces wou l d no t m e a n th at M al ag o di d n ot v i ol ate com pan y

pol i cy

, Mal ag o’ s cl ai m i s con t r adi cted by t

h e f act th at th e adden du

m s h e f or war ded to

th e ou ts i de par ty was a n ewl y g en er ated docu m en t th at M al ag o i m

m edi atel y f

or war ded

to t h i s n on

- em

pl oy ed th i r d per s o n

.

7. M al ag o al s o al l eg es th at E m pl oy er v i ol ated i ts own pol i ci es

. H owev er

, th er e

1 M ur phy & Landon, P

A v. P er nic

, 121 A

. 3d 1215, 1222 ( Del

. 2 015)

.

2 Shuler v. UI

A B & R odel, I

nc

. , 1986 W L 6595, at * 1 ( Del

. Super

. A pr

. 7, 1986)

.

3was n o cas u al n ex u s between th e al l eg ed v i ol ati on s of separ ate pol i ci es an d M al ag o’ s

wr o n g f u l d i scl os u r e of con f i den ti al i n f or m ati on

. A ccor di n g l y

, th e B oar d ’ s deci s i on th at

th e E m p l o y er m et i ts bu

r den o f pr oof i s s u

ppor ted by s u bs t an t i al ev i den ce.

NO W TH EREF O RE

, f or t h e r eas on s ci t e d

, th e B oar d ’ s deci s i on i s

AF F I RM ED.

I T I S S O O RDERED.

/s / J ef f r ey J Cl ar k

J u dg e

4