MARIE A. MONDESTIN, Appellant,
PERDUE FOODS, LLC and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, Appellees.
Submitted: October 16, 2019
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board
A. Mondestin, pro se, 7753 Gaye Drive, Seaford, DE,
Aleeshia Belle, Human Resources, Perdue Foods, LLC, P.O. Box
283, Saint Louis, MO, 63166, Appellee.
C. Mulveny, Esquire and Victoria W. Counihan, Esquire,
Delaware Department of Justice, 820 North French Street,
Wilmington, DE, 18901, Attorneys for Appellee, Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
A. Karsnitz, Judge
A. Mondestin ("Appellant") appeals the decision of
the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (the
"Board") that found she had been discharged from
her place of employment for just cause in connection with
that employment and was therefore disqualified from receiving
unemployment insurance benefits. The Board's decision is
affirmed for the reasons stated below.
was employed by Perdue Foods, LLC ("Employer") as a
General Laborer in the Ground Chicken Department from
November 1, 2016 until she was terminated on February 27,
2019. A Claims Deputy in the Delaware Department of Labor,
Division of Unemployment Insurance, reviewed Appellant's
application for unemployment benefits and determined that she
had been terminated for just cause and was not qualified for
unemployment insurance benefits. Appellant appealed that
determination and a hearing was held before an Appeals
Referee on April 23, 2019. The Appeals Referee
reversed the Claims Deputy's determination,
deciding that Appellant was discharged without just cause and
was qualified for unemployment insurance benefits. Employer
then appealed to the Board, which held a hearing on June 12,
2019. Counsel for the Board and a representative of Employer
were present; Appellant was not present. By way of written
decision mailed July 16, 2019, the Board reversed the Appeals
Referee's decision, finding Employer had terminated Ms.
Smith's employment for just cause and concluding that
Appellant was not entitled to unemployment benefits.
Appellant now appeals to this Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
reviewing the decisions of the Board, I 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. "Substantial evidence" is
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a
conclusion." My review is limited: "It is not the
appellate court's role to weigh the evidence, determine
credibility questions or make its own factual findings, but
merely to decide if the evidence is legally adequate to
support the agency's factual