Fordham v. Little Blessings Daycare, N16A-12-003 FWW

Adrienne Fordham began working as a teacher at Little Blessings Daycare on May 16, 2016 and was terminated on August 5, 2016 after failing to appear for work on August 4, 2016.
Fordham had a history of frequent absences and was placed on/extended probation for attendance issues; employer used a 90‑day probation to evaluate attendance and performance.
On August 3, 2016 Fordham asked for permission to attend a doctor’s appointment on August 4; her supervisor, Malcolm Dawson, granted leave but directed her to report to work before and after the appointment.
Fordham did not report to work on August 4; she texted Dawson at 2:36 p.m. stating she was still at the doctor and later said her doctor told her not to return, but she produced no doctor’s note.
The Claims Deputy disqualified Fordham under 19 Del. C. § 3314(2) for willful misconduct; the Appeals Referee and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, concluding her failure to follow the employer’s directive was willful insubordination.
The Superior Court reviewed the Board’s decision for substantial evidence and legal error and affirmed the Board, finding Fordham’s August 4 conduct (in context of prior absences) constituted insubordination supporting termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fordham was discharged for willful misconduct (disqualifying her from unemployment)	Fordham says supervisor approved her going straight to the appointment that morning, she texted from the doctor, her doctor told her not to return, and heat prevented her return	Little Blessings says Fordham was told to come before and after the appointment, she failed to follow that instruction, and she had repeated attendance problems during probation	Court held substantial evidence supports Board’s finding of willful insubordination; termination for just cause affirmed
Whether the Board’s decision should be overturned for lack of substantial evidence or legal error	Fordham argued the Board’s merits findings were wrong (procedural and factual challenge)	Board/Employer argued the record supported findings and Court should defer under substantial‑evidence review	Court applied substantial‑evidence standard, declined to reweigh evidence or credibility, and found the Board’s decision neither arbitrary nor legally erroneous; affirmed

Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd. v. Duncan, 337 A.2d 308 (Del. 1975) (articulates substantial‑evidence standard for reviewing Board decisions)
Oceanport Indus. v. Wilmington Stevedores, 636 A.2d 892 (Del. Super. 1994) (defines substantial evidence as more than a scintilla)
Breeding v. Contractors‑One‑Inc., 549 A.2d 1102 (Del. 1988) (clarifies substantial‑evidence review does not permit weighing of evidence or assessing credibility)