Ocean Limo Transportation, LLC v. Grant, S16A-07-003 RFS

Sheila Grant was employed by Ocean Limo as a driver for Medicaid clients and was discharged after a January 15, 2016 drug screen tested positive (a January 7 test was negative).
Ocean Limo's policy required employees to submit to random drug screens and to provide documentation and chain-of-custody evidence for testing.
At the UIAB referee hearing and at the Board hearing, Ocean Limo produced the drug screen report but failed to present witnesses or chain-of-custody/sample-procedure testimony to lay the foundational evidence for admitting the test results.
Because the employer did not establish foundation, the drug-test results were hearsay and the Board could not base a termination-for-cause finding solely on that evidence; the Board found Grant was discharged without cause and allowed unemployment benefits.
Ocean Limo, now represented by counsel, asked for remand to present foundational evidence; the Board denied a remand and the Superior Court reviewed that decision.
The Superior Court affirmed the Board, holding (1) the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing remand and (2) remand was not warranted merely to allow Ocean Limo another opportunity to present evidence it had failed to produce earlier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the UIAB abused its discretion by refusing to remand so Ocean Limo could present chain-of-custody/testing-witnesses	Ocean Limo: pro se/representative failed to appreciate foundation rules; now represented by counsel and should get another chance to introduce lab/process witnesses	UIAB/Grant: employer had opportunity and was instructed to present foundation but failed; no error by Board in refusing remand	Court: No abuse of discretion; employer’s failure to present foundational evidence does not justify remand for a second opportunity
Whether remand should be granted in the interest of justice despite no procedural error	Ocean Limo: permitting benefits under “dubious circumstances” (possible intoxicated driving) is unjust; remand needed to prevent improper enrichment and deter misconduct	Grant/UIAB: speculative misconduct does not cure Ocean Limo’s evidentiary failure; interest-of-justice remand not warranted	Court: Interest-of-justice remand denied; insufficient basis to overturn Board where employer simply failed to present required evidence

Funk v. UIAB, 591 A.2d 222 (Del. 1991) (sets standard of appellate review for administrative procedural decisions and affirms deference absent abuse of discretion)