Court Opinion

ID: 9411002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 16:04:10.698939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:02.190853
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 SAMANTHA BRITTINGHAM,                  §
                                        § No. 33, 2023
       Appellant Below-                 §
       Appellant,                       § Court Below—Superior Court
                                        § of the State of Delaware
       v.                               §
                                        § C.A. No. S22A-07-001
 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE                 §
 APPEAL BOARD,                          §
                                        §
       Appellee Below-                  §
       Appellee.                        §

                          Submitted: May 26, 2023
                           Decided: July 24, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices.

                                     ORDER

      Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, it appears

to the Court that:

      (1)    The appellant, Samantha Brittingham, filed this appeal from the

Superior Court’s January 4, 2023 order affirming the decision of the Unemployment

Insurance Appeal Board (“UIAB”). We find no merit to the appeal and, therefore,

affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

      (2)    Brittingham began working for Delmar Pizza and Pasta Restaurant, Inc.

(“Delmar Pizza”) as a server in 2017. In December 2021, Brittingham filed a claim
for unemployment benefits. She alleged that Delmar Pizza had recently reduced her

hours.

         (3)   On January 27, 2022, a Department of Labor claims deputy concluded

that Brittingham was ineligible for benefits because she was not unemployed under

19 Del. C. § 3302(17). Brittingham appealed that decision.

         (4)   On April 4, 2022, the appeals referee held a telephonic hearing on

Brittingham’s appeal. The appeals referee heard testimony from Brittingham, her

manager, and Delmar Pizza’s owner. The appeals referee affirmed the claim

deputy’s decision, finding that Brittingham was not unemployed under Section

3302(17) and was therefore ineligible for benefits. Brittingham appealed the appeals

referee’s decision to the UIAB.

         (5)   On May 18, 2022, the UIAB held a review hearing.         The UIAB

affirmed the appeals referee’s decision, concluding that Brittingham did not meet

the definition of unemployed under Section 3302(17) and was ineligible for benefits.

Brittingham appealed the UIAB’s decision to the Superior Court.

         (6)   In an order dated January 4, 2023, the Superior Court affirmed the

UIAB’s decision. The Superior Court held that the UIAB did not err in concluding

that Brittingham was not unemployed under Section 3302(17).            This appeal

followed.

                                         2
       (7)    This Court’s review of an appeal from the UIAB to the Superior Court

is limited to a determination of whether there is substantial evidence in the record to

support the UIAB’s findings and whether such findings are free from legal error. 1

Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion.2 Like the Superior Court, this Court considers the

record in the light most favorable to the party prevailing on the UIAB appeal. 3 We

do not weigh the evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make our own

factual findings.4

       (8)    On appeal, Brittingham challenges the determination that she was

ineligible for benefits after Delmar Pizza reduced her hours in December 2021. She

also challenges the UIAB’s handling of two other claims she filed.

       (9)    There was substantial evidence to support the UIAB’s finding that

Brittingham was ineligible for benefits. Section 3302(17) provides:

       “Unemployment” exists and an individual is “unemployed” in any
       week during which the individual performs no services and with respect
       to which no wages are payable to the individual, or in any week of less
       than full-time work if the wages payable to the individual with respect
       to such week are less than the individual’s weekly benefit amount plus
       whichever is the greater of $10 or 50% of the individual’s weekly
       benefit amount. The Department shall prescribe regulations applicable
       to unemployed individuals making such distinctions in the procedures
       as to total unemployment, part-total unemployment, partial

1
  Thompson v. Christiana Care Health System, 25 A.3d 778, 782 (Del. 2011).
2
  Oceanport Indus., Inc. v. Wilmington Stevedores, Inc., 636 A.2d 892, 899 (Del. 1994).
3
  Thompson, 25 A.3d at 782.
4
  Id.
                                               3
         unemployment of individuals attached to their regular jobs and other
         forms of short-time work as the Department deems necessary.

The Unemployment Insurance Regulations define a “partially unemployed

individual” as “an employee who, during any given week, is still employed by his

or her employer but worked less than his or her regular full-time hours because of

the lack of full-time work.”5

         (10) During the hearing before the appeals referee, Brittingham testified that

Employer hired her in 2017 to work full-time. She submitted several pay stubs from

late 2019 reflecting that she had worked forty hours per week. But Brittingham also

testified that Employer had taken her off the schedule in December 2020 and did not

call her back to work until April 2021. The pay stubs Brittingham submitted from

November 2021 and December 2021 reflected that she generally worked less than

twenty hours per week. Beginning in late December 2021 Brittingham’s pay stubs

reflected that she worked less than ten hours per week.

         (11) Employer’s owner testified that all employees, including Brittingham,

were hired to work as needed. Brittingham’s manager testified that she gave

Brittingham the day shifts she had available. There were night shifts available, but

Brittingham could not work nights. According to the owner, Brittingham had

5
    19 Del. Admin. C. § 1202-22.1.

                                            4
previously worked nights and was able to work thirty to forty hours per week then.

Brittingham did not dispute that she could not regularly work nights.

      (12) Giving appropriate deference to the UIAB’s factual determinations and

considering the record in the light most favorable to Delmar Pizza, we cannot

conclude that the UIAB erred in finding that Brittingham was ineligible to receive

unemployment benefits. The record contains substantial evidence to support the

UIAB’s determination that Brittingham did not meet the definition of unemployed

under Section 3302(17) because she was not guaranteed a minimum number of hours

when she was hired.

      (13) Brittingham’s remaining arguments relate to different claims she filed

with the UIAB. One claim appears to arise from an injury she suffered while

working in August 2021. The UIAB did not address this claim in resolving

Brittingham’s December 2021 claim. It is unclear if the UIAB ever resolved this

claim. In any event, Brittingham’s August 2021 claim is outside the scope of this

appeal.

      (14)    The other claim arises from a claims deputy’s determination in May

2022 that Brittingham was disqualified from receiving benefits for one year because

she had falsely reported her wages in 2020 and 2021. After Brittingham twice failed

to appear for a hearing before an appeals referee, the UIAB affirmed the appeals

referee’s affirmance of the claims deputy’s decision and dismissal of Brittingham’s

                                         5
appeal. The Superior Court affirmed the UIAB’s decision on February 22, 2023.

Brittingham did not file a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s February 22,

2023 decision and cannot challenge that decision in this appeal.

      NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

                                      BY THE COURT:

                                      /s/ Karen L. Valihura
                                      Justice

                                         6