Tsakiris v. J.P. Morgan Chase
N16A-07-001 CEB
| Del. Super. Ct. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- Claimant Antonios Tsakiris worked for J.P. Morgan Chase and was discharged for performance issues in February 2016.
- Claimant filed for unemployment benefits; a Claims Deputy initially found he was discharged without just cause and awarded benefits.
- Employer timely appealed; an Appeals Referee held a hearing (Claimant did not appear) and reversed, finding termination for just cause and disqualifying Claimant under 19 Del. C. § 3314(2).
- The Referee’s disqualification became final when Claimant failed to appeal within the 10-day statutory appeal period.
- The Department separately issued an overpayment determination (7 weeks, $2,310) based on the final disqualification; Claimant admitted receiving payments and appealed the overpayment but attempted a late appeal of the disqualification.
- The Board consolidated the matters, found the late disqualification appeal untimely, affirmed the disqualification and the overpayment; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal of disqualification | Tsakiris argued merits of disqualification and sought review despite late filing | Board/Employer argued appeal was untimely under 19 Del. C. § 3318(b) and thus final | Appeal untimely; Board did not abuse discretion in refusing late review |
| Ability to challenge disqualification via overpayment appeal | Tsakiris asserted overpayment should be vacated because disqualification was incorrect | Board/Division argued a final disqualification cannot be relitigated in overpayment proceedings | Court held merits of disqualification cannot be relitigated in overpayment appeal |
| Notice and calculation of overpayment | Tsakiris did not dispute receipt but challenged basis tied to disqualification | Division argued notice was mailed and amount matched benefits paid during disqualification period | Substantial evidence showed notice sent and amount correctly calculated ($2,310) |
| Liability for repayment of benefits | Tsakiris effectively argued he should not be liable if disqualification improper | Division relied on 19 Del. C. § 3325 imposing repayment when entitlement is finally determined not to exist | Court held claimant liable to repay benefits received after final disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Funk v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 591 A.2d 222 (Del. 1991) (Board may act sua sponte beyond appeal period but refusal to do so is not necessarily abuse of discretion)
- Person-Gaines v. Pepco Holdings, Inc., 981 A.2d 1159 (Del. 2009) (appellate review limited; court will not reweigh evidence or make new factual findings)
- McIntyre v. Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd., 962 A.2d 917 (Del. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for Board decisions)
- Wyatt v. Rescare Home Care, 81 A.3d 1253 (Del. 2013) (definition of substantial evidence for agency findings)
- Arrants v. Home Depot, 65 A.3d 601 (Del. 2013) (standards for appellate review of administrative determinations)