Court Opinion

ID: 9930530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 04:02:01.867252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:18.271574
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

WILLIAM FASANO,                            )
                                           )
      Claimant-Below,                      )
      Appellant,                           )
                                           )
             v.                            )   C.A. No. N22A-08-005 CLS
                                           )
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF                     )
NATURAL RESOURCES &                        )
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL,                     )
                                           )
      Employer-Below,                      )
      Appellee.                            )

                      Date Submitted: November 1, 2023
                       Date Decided: February 2, 2024

Upon Appellant’s Appeal from the Order of the Merit Employee Relations Board.
                               REMANDED.

                                   ORDER

Kate Butler, Esquire, Kate Butler Law LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, 19806,
Attorney for Claimant Below-Appellant.

Devera Breeding Scott, Esquire, Delaware Department of Justice, New Castle,
Delaware, 19720, Attorney for Employer-Below/Appellee.

SCOTT, J.
                                       1
                                INTRODUCTION
      Before this Court is Appellant William Fasano’s (“Claimant”) appeal from the

decision of the Merit Employee Relations Board (“Board”). The Court has reviewed

the parties’ submissions and heard argument on the issue. For the following reasons,

the Board’s decision is REMANDED.

                                 BACKGROUND
      This case involves Claimant’s termination from the Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) after approximately ten years

serving as the Superintendent of Bellevue State Park. The issues on appeal relate to

the timeliness of the filing of his grievance appeal to the MERB.

      On April 8, 2021, Fasano received the notice of his termination via e-mail to

his personal e-mail address. On May 6, by and through his attorney, Mr. Koller, Esq.,

he sent his Appeal to the Department of Human Resources and the MERB via mail

through the United States Postal Service (USPS). It is undisputed that the letter was

properly addressed, postage paid with unmistakable markings at the bottom

indicative of processing by USPS.

      On May 11, 2021, an administrator at the Department of Human Resources

stamped the envelope as having been “received.”

      On February 3, 2022, Mr. Fasano appeared at the hearing before the MERB

on his appeal with his then-attorney, Mr. Koller, who is licensed to practice in the
                                         2
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Counsel to DNREC, Ms. Devera Scott, objected

to the presence of Mr. Fasano’s representative on the basis that Mr. Koller is not a

licensed Delaware attorney. Accordingly, Mr. Fasano appeared pro se. The Board

convened to hear a preliminary Motion to Dismiss filed by DNREC, arguing the

timeliness of the filing of the appeal. On February 28, 2022, the Board denied the

motion without prejudice finding the question still remained whether Mr. Fasano

met the 30-day time period under Merit Rule 12.9. The February 2022 order

explained, “In the absence of a postmark, the Board, like the courts, will follow the

common law ‘mailbox rule’ which equates to the time of filing with the time of

mailing.” Additionally, the order found DNREC did not rebut the presumption under

the mailbox rule that the appeal was timely mailed and therefore timely filed.

        At the next scheduled hearing date on June 16, 2022, this time, represented by

the undersigned Delaware counsel, the Board proceeded to hear the merits of the

case.

        Though the Board heard evidence on the merits, it concluded the hearing by

ruling on the procedural question upon which it had taken testimony earlier in the

day. Ultimately, the Board decided it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because

it had been filed untimely. It issued a written decision reflecting same on July 26,

2022. The July 2022 Order at issue here explained that “The Board heard testimony

from Mr. Koller and Mr. Kenton but neither had direct knowledge of mailing this
                                           3
grievance. [Mr. Fasano] failed to prove any evidence as to the date and method of

mailing his grievance. Thus, the Board finds that the common law mailbox rule does

not apply.” This appeal timely followed.

      Mr. Fasano filed his opening brief on May 30, 2023. DNREC filed its

answering brief on June 16, 2023. Mr. Fasano subsequently relied on June 26, 2023.

The Court heard oral argument on November 1, 2023.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

      On appeal from the Merit Employee Relations Board, the Superior Court must

determine if the Board's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the

record and free from legal error.1 In reviewing the actions of the agency, the Court

is required “to search the entire record to determine whether, on the basis of all the

testimony and exhibits before the agency, it could fairly and reasonably reach the

conclusion that it did.”2 The Court does not “weigh evidence, determine questions

of credibility or make its own factual evidence findings.”3 When a discretionary

ruling of the Board is appealed, the Court’s scope of review is “limited to whether

1
  Bedwell v. Brandywine Carpet Cleaners, 684 A.2d 302, 304 (Del. Super. 1996)
(citing General Motors Corp. v. Freeman, 164 A.2d 686, 688 (Del. 1960)).
2
  Nat'l Cash Register v. Riner, 424 A.2d 669, 674–75 (Del.Super.1980).
3
  Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64, 67 (Del.1965).
                                           4
the Board abused its discretion.”4       The Court reviews the agency's legal

determinations de novo.5

                                  DISCUSSION

      MERB misapplied the mailbox rule when it determined Mr. Fasano’s appeal
      was untimely
      The only question before this Court is whether Mr. Fasano mailed his appeal

form on or before May 10, 2021 based upon MERB accepting the common-law

mailbox rule for timely filing of appeals. The facts relating to the mailbox rule

application are not in dispute. Mr. Fasano mailed his dual appeal form to MERB and

DHS, the envelope arriving at DHS was properly address, the postage stamps were

affixed, the mail arrived by United States Postal Service to DHS, and DHS received

the mailed appeal form on May 11, 2021. There is no dispute that Mr. Fasano had

until May 10, 2021, to file his appeal. The Board makes clear it accepts the common-

law mailbox rule for timely filing of appeals. In fact, according to the Board’s

February 2022 order, “In the absence of a postmark, the Board, like the courts, will

follow the common law ‘mailbox rule’ which equates to the time of filing with the

time of mailing.” Further, the Board explains that if a document is properly mailed,

the court will presume the United States Postal Service delivered the document to

4
 Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., Del.Supr., 591 A.2d 222, 225 (1991).
5
 Roos Foods v. Guardado, 152 A.3d 114, 118 (Del. 2016); Munyan v. Daimler
Chrysler Corp., 909 A.2d 133, 136 (Del. 2006).
                                         5
the addressee in the usual time and in absence of a postmark, extrinsic evidence

should be considered- like an affidavit from an attorney attesting that the letter was

properly addressed, stamped and mailed in adequate time to reach addressee before

the lapse of the deadline.

      Regardless of this insightful explanation from its February 2022 order, the

Board found in the July 2022 order that the testimony from neither Mr. Koller nor

Mr. Kenton proved either had direct knowledge of mailing this grievance. So,

according to the Board, Mr. Fasano failed to prove any evidence as to the date and

method of mailing his grievance making the common law mailbox inapplicable.

However, direct knowledge of mailing of the grievance is not necessary. The Board

failed to consider that the extrinsic evidence it should have considered because of

the lack of postmark, which includes, from the Board’s February 2022 order,

whether the letter was properly addressed, stamped and mailed in adequate time to

reach DHS before the lapse of the deadline.

      As established, there is no dispute that the letter was properly addressed,

stamped, and contained unmistakable postal markings indicating processing by

USPS, arrived at DHS. Based on the appeal being received on May 11th the only

logical explanation for it being received on that date would be that it was put in the

mail sometime before May 10th because the envelope clearly indicates processing by

USPS. Therefore, according to the Board’s reasoning, the time of mailing would be
                                          6
May 10th making the time of filing also May 10th under the mailbox rule.

Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED to the Board for further proceedings,

consistent with this Order.

                              CONCLUSION
      Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is

REMANDED.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                             /s/ Calvin L. Scott
                                             Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr.

                                    7