KERIA L. CAIN, Appellant,
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, Appellee.
Submitted: October 28, 2013
Upon Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Ms. Keria L. Cain, Wilmington, Delaware, Appellant, pro se.
James T. Wakley, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Appellee Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Richard R. Cooch, R.J.
This 10th day of January 2014, upon consideration of Appellant's Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, it appears to the Court that:
1. Appellant Keria Cain ("Appellant") worked as a teacher for Foulk Preschool & Daycare Center ("Employer") from June 1, 2010 until August 21, 2012. On August 21, 2012, Appellant left her position and did not return to work. There is some dispute as to whether or not she provided proper notice.
2. On September 30, 2012, Appellant applied for unemployment benefits. On October 19, 2012, a claims deputy granted benefits because Appellant had "voluntarily quit [her] work for good cause attributable to [her] work" and had "exhaust[ed] all administrative remedies before leaving [her] employment." Employer timely appealed the decision.
3. On November 26, 2012, an Appeals Referee heard Employer's appeal. Appellant did "not appear[ ] either in person or by telephone." The Appeals Referee proceeded with the appeal and subsequently reversed the claims deputy's decision. The Appeals Referee held "[Appellant] abandoned her job, voluntarily quitting without good cause under the code." Appellant timely appealed the decision to the Board.
4. The Board scheduled Appellant's appeal for February 13, 2013 and Appellant received proper notice of the Board hearing's date, time, and location. Despite Appellant's failure to attend the hearing, the Board accepted Appellant's reason for her absence and remanded the case back to the Appeals Referee. Appellant was again notified of the new Appeals Hearing's date, time, and location.
5. On March 4, 2013 the Appeals Referee dismissed Appellant's claim because she again failed to attend the hearing to prosecute her claim.Appellant timely appealed, citing issues with her transportation.
6. The Board denied Appellant's request for a new hearing and held "[t]he Board exercised [its] discretion in [Appellant's] case once, and [Appellant], having missed the first Referee hearing, failed to appear at a second Referee hearing.…Taking the wrong bus or getting off at the wrong stop is not relevant. There is no evidence of Department error."Appellant timely appealed the Board's decision to this Court.
7. On July 5, 2013, Appellant submitted her Opening Brief. The brief did not address the issue for which her claim was dismissed: her failure to attend the Appeals Referee hearings to prosecute her claim. Instead, the brief mostly focused on Appellant's substantive claims.
8. On appeal, the Board advised the Court that it would not file an Answering Brief because Appellant's Opening Brief did not address the basis for the Board's decision, and the Board believes their decision in the matter is "sufficient ...