Pierce v. Elizabeth Murphey School
K16A-07-004 WLW
| Del. Super. Ct. | Feb 3, 2017Background
- Steven D. Pierce, a house parent at Elizabeth W. Murphey School, was discharged March 10, 2016 for using an allegedly improper physical restraint on a youth trained under the employer's Non‑Violent Physical Crisis Intervention (NVPCI) passive restraint policy.
- Pierce applied for unemployment benefits; a claims deputy found the School met its burden that the discharge was for willful or wanton misconduct after reviewing training records and a written description of a surveillance video the School would not produce.
- At the appeals hearing, the School’s representative (Michael Kopp) testified about the surveillance video (which the School did not provide, citing technical and custodial reasons) and the licensing investigation substantiating improper discipline.
- Pierce testified he acted to assist staff removing the youth’s shoes, denied slamming the youth, and admitted holding the youth against a wall; he did not request subpoenas for the video or coworker statements before the hearing.
- The Appeals Referee and the UIAB found Pierce violated the employer’s passive restraint policy by placing pressure on the youth’s chest and holding him against a wall; Pierce appealed to Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to produce documentary evidence (police reports, incident statements, video) | School withheld evidence; denial of fair hearing | Pierce did not request subpoenas as required by Board rules; School offered written evidence and testimony | No abuse: Pierce failed to request subpoenas under Board Rule 4.8, so Board did not err in not compelling production |
| Admissibility of testimony about surveillance video (original not produced) | Testimony describing video was inadmissible hearsay; original video required under D.R.E. 1002/1001 | Board may admit hearsay per its regulations; video testimony relevant to dispute | Admission was abuse of discretion (original video not produced), but harmless error because Board relied on Pierce’s own admissions rather than the improper testimony |
| Credibility and weight given to employer representative’s testimony; allegation of bias based on ethnicity | Kopp’s credibility flawed; alleged bias influenced Board | Board has discretion to assess witness credibility; no record evidence of bias; Pierce could have impeached at hearing | No abuse: credibility determinations are for the Board and no evidence showed bias influenced outcome |
| Exclusion of cross‑examination about Kopp’s prior alleged improper restraint | Evidence of Kopp’s prior restraint would impeach credibility/relevance to pattern | Referee excluded as irrelevant and within discretion; issue not raised before full Board | No abuse: exclusion was within referee’s discretion and Pierce did not properly preserve the issue for the Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Chrysler Corp., 213 A.2d 64 (Del. 1965) (standard that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility of witnesses)
- Green v. Alfred A.I. DuPont Inst. of the Nemours Found., 759 A.2d 1060 (Del. 2000) (test for whether evidentiary errors at administrative hearings require reversal: prejudicial effect on fairness)
- Murphy & Landon, P.A. v. Pernic, 121 A.3d 1215 (Del. 2015) (burden on employer to prove termination for just cause)