IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KATHY LAKE, )

)

Appellant, )

v. ) C.A. No. N15A-05-006 RRC

)

DOMINION MANAGEMENT )

SERVICE OF DELAWARE and )

UNEMPLOYMENT )

INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, )

)

Appellee. )

Submitted: December 21, 2015

Decided: March 14, 2016

On Appeal from a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

AFFIRMED.

ORDER

Kathy Lake, Willingboro, New Jersey, pro se, Appellant.

1

Dominion Management Services of Delaware, 705 N. DuPont Highway, 

Dover, Delaware, Appellee.

Paige J. Schmittinger, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of 

Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the Unemployment Insurance 

Appeal Board.

 1 Appellant Kathy Lake filed the only brief in this case. The Unemployment Insurance 

Appeal Board filed a letter with this Court asserting that it takes no position and would 

not file an answering brief unless directed to by the Court. Despite being served process 

on June 1, 2015; provided with a Briefing Schedule on July 21, 2015; and sent a Final 

Delinquent Notice on September 22, 2015, Appellee Dominion Management Services of 

Delaware, Inc. did not file an Answering Brief with this Court. Therefore, pursuant to 

Superior Court Civil Rule 107(f), the Court will make a determination of the issue on the 

papers which have been filed. 
2

COOCH, R.J.

This 14th day of March, 2016, on appeal of a decision from the 

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, it appears to the Court that:

1. On November 17, 2014, a notice of wage garnishment was served on 

Dominion Management Services of Delaware instructing it to 

withhold a portion of Appellant Kathy Lake’s wages.

2

 Lake was 

discharged from Dominion Management after she removed the notice 

of wage garnishment and took it home without permission.3

 

2. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed a decision of 

the Appeals Referee that held Lake was terminated from her 

employment for just cause and not entitled to unemployment benefits. 

Specifically, the Board found that Lake removed the document in 

error, failed to discuss the document with her employer when she 

returned to work, and Dominion Management met its burden of 

proving by a preponderance of evidence that Lake was terminated for 

just cause.4

3. Lake asserts three grounds why this Court should reverse the decision 

of the Board. First, Lake contends that a “spokesperson from 

Dominion Management refuse[d] to present the most important piece 

of evidence in [Lake’s] case, which [was] the video[]tape from the 

camera located in the front office.”5

 Lake asserts that the videotape 

shows that she did not remove the garnishment notice from her 

manager’s desk.6

 Instead, the video shows that she was handed the 

papers by a coworker.7

4. Second, Lake contends that the Board improperly denied her an 

adequate opportunity to rebut the testimony from Dominion 

Management’s representative. 

 2 R. at 14. 

3 Id. at 79. 4 Id. 5 Appellant’s Opening Br. at 1. 

6 Id. 7 Id. 
3

5. Third, Lake asserts that one of the Board members “was a very elderly 

man who[] was sleeping the majority of the time and could not have 

possibly rendered any fair comments.”8

6. This Court’s review of a Board decision is limited to whether the 

Board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and free 

from legal error.9 Substantial evidence requires “such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.”10 It is within the province of the Board, not this Court, 

to weigh evidence or make determinations based on credibility or 

facts.11 Reversal based on an abuse of discretion will be granted only 

if “the Board acts ‘arbitrarily or capriciously’ or ‘exceeds the bounds 

of reason in view of the circumstances and has ignored recognized 

rules of law or practice so as to produce injustice.” 12

7. Individuals who are discharged for just cause and not eligible for 

unemployment benefits.13 When an employee is discharged, the 

employer has the burden of proving just cause by a preponderance of 

evidence.14 “Just cause” is ‘“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.”’

15 Just cause also 

‘“includes notice to the employee in the form of a final warning that 

further poor behavior or performance may lead to termination.”’16 

However, under certain circumstances the discharged employee is not 

entitled to any warning before termination.17

 8 Id. at 2. 

9 Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Martin, 431 A.2d 1265, 1266 (Del. 1981). 

10 Oceanport Indus., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994) 

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

11 Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 66 (Del. 1965).

12 Straley v. Advanced Staffing, Inc., 2009 WL 1228572, at * 2 (Del. Super. Apr. 30, 

2009) (citing Kreshtool v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 310 A.2d 649, 652 (Del. Super. 

1973); Nardi v. Lewis, 2000 WL 303147, at *2 (Del. Super. Jan. 26, 2000)).

13 19 Del. C. § 3314(2). 

14 McGee v. Amazon.com, 2013 WL 656243, at* 3 (Del. Super. Jan. 31, 2013). 

15 Id. (citations omitted). 

16 Id. (citations omitted). 

17 Short v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 513 A.2d 1319, 1986 WL 17127, at* 1 (Del. 

July 30, 1986) (“[U]nder the circumstances, the appellant was not entitled to a warning 

before he was discharged.”); Ferrante v. Delaware Park Casino, 2015 WL 1201519, at* 

5 (Del. Super. Mar. 12, 2015) (holding that an employee who was discharged for picking 
4

8. In spite of Lake’s attempt to show that this is all a misunderstanding, 

there is substantial evidence to support that the Board’s finding that 

Dominion Management had just cause to terminate her employment. 

The Board listened to testimony from Lake and from a representative 

of Dominion Management and determined the representative’s 

testimony was credible.18 The Board also found that Lake improperly 

removed a document from her workplace that directed her employer 

to garnish her wages. Lake then failed to discuss the document with 

her manager when she returned to work the following day. 

9. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions. First, Lake 

admits to taking the document from her workplace and bringing it 

home.19 Lake also admits that she never discussed the document with 

her manager when she returned to work.20 Therefore, in light of 

Lake’s admissions, the Board has not acted arbitrarily and 

capriciously, or exceeded the bounds of reason in making its 

determination.

10.Furthermore, the positions that Lake asserts as grounds for this Court 

to reverse the Board’s decision are unpersuasive. First, Lake asserts 

that a videotape that “clearly shows” she did not take the document 

from her manager’s desk. However, Lake admitted that she has never 

seen the videotape.21

11. Next, Lake contends that she was not allowed to confront Dominion 

Management’s representative about testimony she felt was incorrect. 

However, Lake was permitted to testify about her version of the 

events.22 She was then asked questions by the members of the 

Board.23 And, after Dominion Management’s representative testified, 

Lake was permitted to ask the Board a question and the representative 

 

up a one-hundred-dollar bill off the casino floor, but only turned in a twenty-dollar bill to 

a security officer was not entitled to a warning that future dishonest behavior may lead to 

termination). 

18 R. at 79. 

19 Id. at 66. 

20 Id. at 67. 

21 Id. at 63-65. 

22 R. at 60-62.

23 Id. at 62-65. 
5

was instructed to answer it.24 Lake took that opportunity to ask her 

“number[-]one question and only question.”25 Given Lake’s

opportunity to testify about her version of the events; inquiry from the 

members of the Board about her testimony; and the Board allowing 

her to ask her “only question” for the representative, she was afforded 

a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Therefore, her second claim 

lacks merit.

12.Finally, Lake asserts that one unidentified Board member was asleep 

during the hearing. Lake does not offer any evidence for her 

accusation. The Court finds that this claim is conclusory and lacks 

merit, because Lake has failed to offer any evidence supporting her 

claim. 

Therefore, the Board’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

Richard R. Cooch, R.J.

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board

 24 Id. at 74-75. 

25 Id. at 75.