Title: Gardner v. Division of Social Services & UIAB
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 234, 2016
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: October 10, 2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
JACQUELINE Y. GARDNER, 
 
Appellant Below, 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DELAWARE 
DIVISION 
OF 
SOCIAL 
SERVICES 
and 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 
APPEAL BOARD, 
 
Appellees Below, 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 234, 2016 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. S12A-11-002 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted:  August 19, 2016 
 
 
 
 
   Decided: October 10, 2016 
 
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices. 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 10th day of October 2016, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the record below,1 it appears to the Court that: 
(1) 
The appellant, Jacqueline Y. Gardner, filed this appeal from a 
Superior Court order denying her motion to vacate.  We find no merit to the 
appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
(2) 
On November 14, 2012, Gardner filed a notice of appeal from a 
decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (“UIAB”) affirming the 
                                                 
1 The appellees did not file answering briefs. 
2 
 
denial of her claim for unemployment benefits.  Gardner argued in her opening 
brief and reply brief that she left her job for good cause because she suffered 
workplace harassment and retaliation that negatively impacted her health and 
required medication.  In an opinion dated April 24, 2013, the Superior Court 
affirmed the decision of the UIAB.2  The Superior Court concluded there was 
substantial evidence to support the UIAB’s conclusion that Gardner was not 
entitled to unemployment benefits because she did not have good cause to quit her 
job and there was no evidence she had utilized her administrative remedies with 
her employer before quitting.3  Gardner did not appeal the Superior Court’s 
judgment. 
(3) 
On April 21, 2016, Gardner filed a motion to vacate.  Gardner argued 
that the Superior Court ignored evidence of discrimination and harassment she 
suffered and her exhaustion of administrative remedies in its April 24, 2013 
decision.  The Superior Court denied the motion to vacate in a letter dated April 
28, 2016.  The Superior Court held that if Gardner was dissatisfied with the April 
24, 2013 decision, then she should have filed a notice of appeal.  This appeal 
followed. 
(4) 
On appeal, Gardner argues that the Superior Court ignored evidence 
of discrimination and harassment she suffered when it affirmed the UIAB’s denial 
                                                 
2 Gardner v. Delaware Div. of Soc. Servs., 2013 WL 2453721 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 24, 2013). 
3 Id. at *1-2. 
3 
 
of her claim for unemployment benefits.  We review the grant or denial of a 
motion to vacate for abuse of discretion.4  Under Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b), 
the Superior Court may relieve a party from a final judgment upon a showing of: 
(i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (ii) newly discovered 
evidence; (iii) fraud; (iv) the judgment is void; (v) the judgment has been satisfied; 
or (vi) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.5 
(5) 
Having carefully considered the appellant’s brief on appeal and the 
Superior Court record, we find no error or abuse of discretion in the Superior 
Court’s denial of the motion to vacate.  Gardner’s motion to vacate asserted claims 
that were raised or could have been raised in the proceedings leading to the 
Superior Court’s April 24, 2013 decision.  In her 2013 opening and reply briefs, for 
example, Gardner argued that the record showed she left her job for good cause 
due to harassment and retaliation in the workplace and that she followed the rules 
for exhaustion of her administrative remedies.  The motion to vacate included 
many of the same documents Gardner included in her 2013 opening brief to 
support her claims of workplace harassment and health problems.   
(6) 
If Gardner wished to challenge the Superior Court’s resolution of her 
claims in its April 24, 2013 decision as the motion to vacate reflects, she could 
have appealed that decision.  She did not do so.  She cannot use a Rule 60(b) 
                                                 
4 MCA, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 785 A.2d 625, 633 (Del. 2001). 
5 Super. Ct. Civ. 60(b). 
4 
 
motion to vacate as a substitute for a timely-filed appeal from the Superior Court’s 
April 24, 2013 decision.6  Gardner’s rehashing of claims she raised in the 2013 
Superior Court proceedings and attacks on how the Superior Court resolved those 
claims did not satisfy any of the Rule 60(b) criteria for relief from a judgment.  The 
Superior Court did not err, therefore, in denying the motion to vacate. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Karen L. Valihura 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                 
6 Dixon v. Delaware Olds, Inc., 405 A.2d 117, 119 (Del. 1979).