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.

Pierson v. Mid Atlantic Lubes, LLC

Superior Court of Delaware

December 19, 2018

AUDREY M. PIERSON, Appellant,
v.
MID ATLANTIC LUBES, LLC and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, Appellee

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

          Submitted: 10/24/18

          Audrey M. Pierson, Pro Se.

          Daniel C. Mulveny, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, Attorney for Appellee, Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STOKES, R.J.

         I. Introduction

         Audrey M. Pierson ("Appellant" or "Pierson") has appealed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ("UIAB" or "Board") to deny Appellant unemployment benefits. The employer has not participated in this appeal. For the reasons stated herein, the decision is AFFIRMED.

         II. Factual and Procedural History

         Pierson was terminated from her employment with Mid Atlantic Lubes, LLC ("Employer") on February 2, 2018. She thereafter applied for unemployment compensation benefits and had a hearing before a Claim's Deputy. The Deputy determined that Pierson was terminated from her employment without just cause and was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. Employer then appealed this decision to the Referee. The Referee accordingly reversed the decision of the Deputy finding that Pierson was terminated with just cause and that Pierson was no longer entitled to receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. Pierson then appealed the decision of the Referee to the Board. The Board affirmed the decision of the Referee specifically stating, "[t]he record shows that Claimant was discharged with just cause for violating Employer's safety policies" in regard to Pierson allowing her boyfriend to help clean an oil spill without the proper safety equipment. Pierson has since appealed the decision of the Board to the Superior Court.

         The facts presented to the Board are as follows. Pierson holds the title of Assistant Manager, but Pierson contends that a co-worker, Tawn Murphy ("Murphy"), was the acting manager on the date of the incident. While both Pierson and Murphy were working an oil spill occurred in the downstairs area of the Employer's facility. Pierson contends that Murphy was the acting manager because Murphy opened the store that morning and was the first to call a superior manager and Human Resources after the oil spill occurred. Furthermore, Pierson contends that she was at no point acting as the store manager on the date of the incident, because she was not the "manager in charge".

         At some point after the spill occurred Pierson's boyfriend arrived on the scene. Pierson's boyfriend was employed by Employer, but worked at another location. Pierson then allowed her boyfriend to proceed to the downstairs area of Employer's facility in order to clean the oil spill, but he did not wear the required safety equipment while doing so. Employer had a safety policy that prohibited both employees and visitors from entering the downstairs area of the facility without safety equipment. The policy that required safety equipment in the downstairs area of the facility was laid out in the employee handbook. Furthermore, the company policy states that employees from other company stores are to be treated as customers and must not enter the downstairs area of the facility. Pierson admitted that she had received the handbook and signed it on June 19, 2015.

         Pierson admits that she allowed her boyfriend to enter the downstairs area of the facility in order to help clean the spill. She also admits that she allowed her boyfriend to enter the downstairs area without the required safety equipment. Pierson testified to the Board that she believed her actions in allowing her boyfriend to clean the spill were appropriate because the other workers did not clean it up. Pierson believes that she did everything right in the situation and therefore was discharged without just cause. Several pictures of the facility and the spill were admitted into evidence as well as minutes of the event. The Board entered those exhibits into evidence.

         III. Standard of Review

         When reviewing the decisions of the Board, this Court must determine whether the Board's findings and conclusions of law are free from legal error and are supported by substantial evidence in the record.[1] Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[2] The Court's review is limited: "It is not the appellate court's role to weigh evidence, determine credibility questions or make its own ...


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.