Charleron v. Premier Staffing Solutions
S17A-05-002 ESB
| Del. Super. Ct. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Claimant Linda Charleron worked for Premier Staffing Solutions, a temp agency; her night-shift assignment ended and Premier offered a day-shift housekeeping job which she declined because she attends school during the day.
- Premier terminated Charleron for refusing work; she filed an unemployment benefits claim which Premier opposed.
- Claims Deputy and Appeals Referee found Charleron ineligible, concluding she declined a reasonable job offer.
- Charleron appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; she was mailed notice of the appeal hearing and warned that late arrival could lead to dismissal.
- Charleron arrived about 9:16 a.m. for a 9:00 a.m. hearing; the Board adhered to its Rule B 10-minute grace period and dismissed the appeal for failure to appear timely.
- Charleron appealed the Board’s dismissal to Superior Court challenging the dismissal and arguing she did not refuse work and that Premier knew of her school schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board abused its discretion by dismissing the appeal for late arrival | Charleron said she was late because she got lost and contended she did not refuse the job; therefore dismissal was improper | Board enforced Rule B; notice warned of dismissal and it waited the customary 10 minutes before dismissing | Court held no abuse of discretion; dismissal proper because notice given and Rule B was followed |
| Whether Charleron was improperly denied a hearing on merits of benefit eligibility | Charleron argued merits (Premier knew about school; she didn’t refuse work) | Board argued procedural default due to failure to appear; merits not reached | Court declined to reach merits; review limited to procedural abuse of discretion and found none |
Key Cases Cited
- Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. of the Dept. of Labor v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308 (Del. 1975) (defines scope of appellate review for administrative findings)
- Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892 (Del. 1994) (explains substantial evidence standard)
- Geegan v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 76 A.2d 116 (Del. Super. 1950) (administrative findings are conclusive if supported by competent evidence)
- Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations)