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.

Williams v. Goodwill Industries of Delaware and Delaware County

Superior Court of Delaware

November 27, 2017

ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS, Claimant-Below-Appellant,
v.
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF DELAWARE AND DELAWARE COUNTY, Employer-Below-Appellee and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD.

          Submitted: September 7, 2017

         On Appeal From a Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. AFFIRMED.

          Robert Lee Williams, Wilmington, Delaware, pro se, Appellant.

          Jennifer C. Jauffret, Esquire and Lori A. Brewington, Esquire, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Appellee Goodwill Industries of Delaware and Delaware County.

          Carla A.K. Jarosz, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

          ORDER

          RICHARD R. COOCH, R.J.

         This 27th day of November 2017, upon consideration of Appellant's appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, [1] it appears to the Court that:

1. Claimant-Below/Appellant has appealed a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ("UIAB") denying his petition for unemployment benefits. On appeal, Appellant essentially argues that he was not terminated for just cause. This argument is unsupported by the record. Accordingly, this Court AFFIRMS the decision of the UIAB.
2. Appellant was an employee of Goodwill Industries of Delaware and Delaware County ("Appellee").[2] Appellee contracts with Delaware State Agencies to provide janitorial services at several locations, such as the New Castle County Courthouse where Appellant was employed as a janitor.[3] On December 21, 2016 Appellee terminated Appellants employment[4] because of "threatened or actual physical violence and the use of profane abusive language[.]"[5]
3. The incident occurred during a meeting between the Appellant, the Goodwill Janitorial Area Manager, Kenneth Ross ("Ross"), and two Goodwill Janitorial Supervisors, Robert Johnson ("Johnson") and Arnecia Washington ("Washington").[6] During the meeting, Appellant stated "[m]y son is in jail. I am paying all this money because of him, If anybody f***s with me I will kill them. I ain't going to let no f******g body hurt me." [7] Appellant reiterated that he will "kill anybody."[8]
4. At the hearing before the Appeals Referee on February 16, 2017, Ross, Johnson, and Washington testified that they felt that their lives were in danger.[9] Appellant admitted at the hearing that he made the statements to Ross, Johnson, and Washington because he was "frustrated and upset."[10]
5. On February 21, 2017, the Appeal's Referee denied Appellant's petition for unemployment benefits because Appellant was discharged for just cause as his actions rose to the level of "willful and wanton misconduct."[11]The UIAB affirmed that decision on April 19, 2017.[12]Appellant now appeals that decision to this Court.
6. On appeal, Appellant appears to argue that he is entitled to unemployment benefits because he was not terminated for just cause.[13]Appellant alleges that if he had made threatening comments "[he] would be in jail by now[.]"[14]
7. In response, Appellee asserts that this Court on appeal may not exercise the function of the UIAB and "weigh evidence, determine questions of credibility, and make its own factual findings and conclusions."[15] Thus, because the UIAB found substantial evidence that Appellant acted "willfully and wantonly against known policies of [Appellee] against workplace violence and abusive language, "[16] the UIAB decision should be affirmed.
8. "It is well established that an appeal from an administrative board's final order to this Court is confined to a determination of whether the UIAB's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error."[17] Substantial evidence is evidence "that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."[18] This Court will not "weigh evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings[.]"[19] "Absent an error of law, the [UIAB's] decision will not be disturbed where there is substantial evidence to support its conclusions."[20] "In reviewing the record for substantial evidence, the Court will consider the record in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below."[21]
9. The UIAB decision below was supported by substantial evidence and thus will not be reversed. Pursuant to 19 ...

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.