Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Redmon v. Hall

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

April 10, 2013

LINDA REDMON, Appellant,
v.
GILPIN HALL and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, Appellees.

Date Submitted: January 2, 2012

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

Linda Redmon, Bear, Delaware. Pro Se Appellant.

Jennifer Gimler Brady, Esq., Michael B. Rush, Esq., Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Appellee, Home for Aged Women-Minquadale Home, Inc. d/b/a Gilpin Hall

ORDER

CALVIN L. SCOTT, JR., JUDGE

Introduction

Before this Court is the Appellant Linda Redmon's ("Appellant") appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("Board") in which the Board concluded that Appellant terminated her employment without good cause attributable to her employment. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions. For the following reasons, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.

Background

On October 14, 2011, Gilpin Hall ("Employer") hired Appellant as a part-time security front desk receptionist. When Appellant was hired, an individual who was a member of the National Guard was employed by Employer, but was scheduled to be away for military duty from October 14, 2011 until February 2012. After the serviceman returned, Employer requested that Appellant sign an "Employee's Request for Change in Status" form ("Request Form") to indicate that that Appellant would be transitioning from part-time status to "PRN", which meant that Appellant would be working on an "as needed" basis. Appellant refused to sign the form and her employment ended on March 5, 2012.

Appellant filed for unemployment benefits and the Claims Deputy determined that Appellant was discharged without just cause. Employer appealed the decision and a hearing was held on April 26, 2012. Vicki Roberts ("Roberts"), a witness for Employer, testified that Appellant's position was a part-time, temporary position and that Appellant was informed when she was hired that it "may be possible that [the position] would become full time [when the serviceman returned] but [the employer] was not sure until the serviceman was to return."[1]Paul Smiley ("Smiley"), another witness for Employer, gave similar testimony. Employer provided the Board with a "Verification of Employment" form, dated October 14, 2011, which indicated that Appellant's position was temporary with a "[p]ossibilty of becoming permanent [part-time] in January."[2] Appellant testified that she was unaware that she was being hired on a temporary basis or that her hours would be reduced when the serviceman returned until four months into the job.

Employer's witnesses testified that, when the serviceman returned, Appellant's temporary position ended and Employer offered Appellant a position on "as needed" basis. Appellant testified that she refused to sign the form due to her belief that the wording of the form was misleading. Appellant believed that the form indicated that Appellant was requesting to work less hours when she was not. Smiley testified that it was explained to Appellant that signing the form was not actually a request to reduce her hours because her position had ended after the serviceman returned. He further testified that the signing the form was, instead, a request to be put on a list to be called to work on an "as needed" basis.

Reversing the decision of the Claims Deputy, the Appeals Referee determined that Appellant left work without good cause attributable to her work. Appellant appealed this decision to the Board and a hearing was held on July 11, 2012. During the hearing, Appellant and Smiley reiterated much of the same testimony given at the April 2012 hearing. The Board affirmed the Referee's decision after examining the record and the additional testimony and evidence received during the July hearing. The Board deemed the Employer's witnesses' testimony to be "consistent and credible"[3] that Appellant was hired for a temporary period while the service member was away on military service and that Appellant conceded to the Referee that she was aware she was hired on a temporary basis. The Board found that, when Appellant refused to sign the Request Form after her temporary position expired, she was "refusing to continue her employment."[4] The Board also found the evidence to be insufficient to conclude that Appellant had good cause to leave her work for reasons attributable to the work since the position was temporary and the change in employment status was foreseeable.

Issues on Appeal

Appellant sets forth several facts and challenges to the testimony given by the Employer's witnesses in the hearings below as the basis for this appeal. Appellant explains that she was never informed that she was filling in temporarily for military personnel and gives further details about the circumstances surrounding Employer's request that she sign the Request Form. Appellant also argues that the record shows that she did not voluntarily quit work. Employer argues that the Board's decision was free of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.