Burke v. Child, Inc.
N17A-04-005 CEB
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Burke worked part-time as a Family Visitation Center Counselor for CHILD, Inc. from August 2015 until her termination on January 20, 2017.
- CHILD, Inc. has a Workplace Violence policy (prohibiting threats, harassment, intimidation, etc.) and an employee acknowledgment form; Burke signed the acknowledgment in September 2015.
- Employer discovered public Facebook posts by Burke containing harassing, threatening, and racially charged statements about coworkers (e.g., references to ‘‘snatched the little bit of locs she has left,’’ and ‘‘Today's generation needs a good ass whippin' to show respect’’).
- Employer terminated Burke for violating its policies. The Division of Unemployment’s Claims Deputy disqualified her from benefits under 19 Del. C. § 3314(2) (discharge for "just cause").
- Burke appealed to an Appeals Referee and then to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; both affirmed the disqualification, finding willful/wanton violation of employer interests and insubordination.
- Burke appealed to the Superior Court alleging she did not violate policy, did not make explicit threats, and that the hearings improperly limited her questioning and review of documents; the Superior Court affirmed the Board, finding substantial evidence supported the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Burke's Argument | CHILD, Inc.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burke was discharged for "just cause" under 19 Del. C. § 3314(2) for her Facebook posts | Burke denied making threats or violating violence/harassment policy; asserted posts were not violent threats or racial slurs | Burke publicly posted harassing/threatening comments about coworkers, violated Workplace Violence and media-contact policies, and was insubordinate | Court held substantial evidence supports that a single incident of willful/wanton misconduct (posts) constituted just cause for discharge and disqualification from benefits |
| Whether Burke was denied procedural fairness at administrative hearings | Claimed she was not allowed to ask questions and that supporting documents were not properly reviewed | Administrative process afforded Burke opportunity to be heard and present evidence; no procedural error shown | Court found no merit to procedural due-process/record-review claims and concluded Burke had adequate opportunity to present evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Arrants v. Home Depot, 65 A.3d 601 (Del. 2013) (standard of appellate review for Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board decisions)
- Wyatt v. Rescare Home Care, 81 A.3d 1253 (Del. 2013) (definition of substantial evidence and scope of review)
- Tuttle v. Mellon Bank of Delaware, 659 A.2d 786 (Del. Super. 1995) (definition of "willful" and "wanton" misconduct)
- Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159 (Del. 2009) (court will not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility on appeal)
- Avon Prods., Inc. v. Wilson, 513 A.2d 1315 (Del. 1986) (formulation of "just cause" for employee misconduct)