Department of Justice v. Densten
N14A-09-008 RFS
| Del. Super. Ct. | Jul 6, 2016Background
- Robin S. Densten worked as a DOJ Trial Support Specialist (since 2005), frequently performing late-hour work for trial preparations.
- In fall 2013 DOJ denied her overtime pay because she had not obtained prior approval per DOJ policy; she resigned on September 27, 2013, then filed for unemployment benefits.
- A Claims Deputy and an Appeals Referee found she voluntarily left without good cause and disqualified her from benefits; Densten appealed to the UIAB.
- At the UIAB hearing the DOJ sought a continuance for witness availability; the Board denied the second continuance and limited Densten’s testimony to interactions with the DOJ HR director, Diane Hasse.
- The UIAB reversed the referee, finding Densten had good cause to quit (overtime denial = substantial reduction in pay and she exhausted reasonable alternatives); the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Densten) | Defendant's Argument (DOJ) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Densten had "good cause" to voluntarily quit under 19 Del. C. § 3314(1) (first prong: employer-controlled condition/no reasonably prudent employee would stay) | Densten: Denial of overtime pay was a substantial reduction in pay within employer control and justified quitting. | DOJ: Denial was consistent with policy; not a substantial reduction and did not justify resignation. | Held: UIAB/Superior Court—overtime denial was a substantial reduction in pay and satisfied the first prong. |
| Whether Densten exhausted all reasonable alternatives before quitting (Thompson second prong) | Densten: She raised the issue with HR (Hasse); Hasse suggested she look elsewhere, implying no further options. | DOJ: She should have escalated up the chain of command or pursued other remedies before resigning. | Held: UIAB/Superior Court—Densten reasonably notified an authorized person (HR), described the problem, and was given an implied ‘‘no further remedy’’; exhaustion requirement satisfied. |
| Whether the UIAB abused its discretion by denying DOJ’s request for a continuance | Densten: Board already granted one continuance; DOJ had adequate prior testimony before the referee; denial was reasonable. | DOJ: Witness unavailability prejudiced DOJ and denial was unreasonable. | Held: UIAB/Superior Court—no abuse of discretion; denial was within the Board’s discretion and did not produce injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oceanport Ind. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892 (Del. 1994) (defines substantial-evidence standard of review for administrative findings)
- Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys., 25 A.3d 778 (Del. 2011) (articulates two-prong test for "good cause" to quit: employer-controlled conditions/no prudent employee would stay; exhaustion of reasonable alternatives)
- Hubbard v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 352 A.2d 761 (Del. 1976) (standard for reviewing administrative factfinding and scope of judicial review)
- Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222 (Del. 1991) (discussion of good-cause principles in unemployment context)
- O’Neals’s Bus. Serv., Inc. v. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 269 A.2d 247 (Del. Super. 1970) (employee bears burden to show good cause attributable to employment)