14 A.3d 566
Del.2011Background
- Avallone, a Delaware state employee with 15 years of service, was dismissed by DHSS for misrepresenting a State purchase in obtaining video equipment.
- DHSS found that Avallone used a State purchase order and DSAMH affiliation to obtain equipment for personal use, then reimbursed partially by paying later.
- After his grievance was denied, the MERB reinstated Avallone but without backpay; DHSS appealed to Superior Court.
- Superior Court reversed, holding MERB lacked authority to modify discipline and that MERB may not shift burden of proof or grant backpay; Avallone appealed.
- The Delaware Supreme Court held MERB has broad remedial authority under 29 Del. C. § 5931(a) to remedy misapplications of the Merit Rules, including modifying discipline and awarding backpay.
- The Court also held the MERB did not improperly shift the burden of proof to DHSS for the third element of just cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MERB may modify agency-imposed discipline | Avallone argues MERB lacks authority to alter DHSS discipline. | DHSS contends MERB may not modify discipline, only accept or reject it. | MERB may modify discipline under § 5931(a). |
| Whether MERB shifted the burden of proof to DHSS on just cause | Avallone asserts MERB incorrectly placed the burden on DHSS for the third element of just cause. | DHSS argues no improper burden shifting occurred. | No reversible error; MERB did not shift the burden. |
| Whether the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate under the circumstances | Avallone contends the penalty was excessive given fifteen-year clean record and circumstances. | DHSS argues dismissal was appropriate; MERB's view to modify is a remediable misapplication. | MERB may modify to remedy misapplication of Merit Rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopson v. McGinnes, 391 A.2d 187 (Del. 1978) (substantial evidence standard and agency review basics)
- Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159 (Del. 2009) (statutory interpretation and review standards)
- Dambro v. Meyer, 974 A.2d 121 (Del. 2009) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- LeVan v. Independence Mall, Inc., 940 A.2d 929 (Del. 2007) (contracting interpretation and case law synthesis)
- Worsham v. State, 638 A.2d 1104 (Del. 1994) (remedial powers implied to make employees whole)
- Berenguer v. State, 321 A.2d 507 (Del. Super. 1974) (statutory limits on Commission power to fix penalties on appeal)