JOHNSON v. CHRISTIANA CARE HLTH. SVC, 10A-11-012 FSS (Del.Super. 10-28-2011)

MARY JOHNSON, Appellant, v. CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH SVC. and UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD, Appellees.

C.A. No. 10A-11-012 FSS.Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.Submitted: October 4, 2011.
Decided: October 28, 2011.

Upon Appeal From the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board — AFFIRMED.

Ms. Mary Johnson, Pro Se.

David H. Williams, Esquire — Christiana Care Health Svc. James H. McMackin, III, Esquire — Christiana Care Health Svc., Katisha D. Fortune, Esquire — Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Joseph S. Grubb, Deputy Attorney General.

ORDER
FRED S. SILVERMAN, Judge

1. It appears that Appellant was a long-time, reliable employee of Christiana Care. Unfortunately, someone attempted to kill her daughter in their home, so Appellant hastily left her job and moved to another state. Significantly, when Appellant left, she gave her employer a letter of resignation.

2. During the August 30, 2010, administrative hearing before the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s Chief Appeal Referee, Appellant testified:

Page 2

I didn’t abandon the job. I felt although this was the only decision I could make. You know I have been at the job. . . . going on thirteen years. I liked my job. And I quickly had to start my life over.

3. When an employee resigns, in effect she gives up her claim for unemployment insurance benefits.[1] That is true unless the resignation was for good cause related to the conditions of her employment. Good cause does not mean, as a matter of law, the employee made a sound decision on things happening in her life that were unrelated to her work.[2]

4. The court suspects that the Board and even Christiana Care were sympathetic to Appellant’s predicament. The court certainly is. The assailant’s prosecutor stands behind her, too. Nevertheless, Appellant’s decision to leave her job, even after thirteen years and for good personal reasons, was her decision. Simply put, Appellant’s resignation was in no way attributable to her work.

Page 3

5. In light of above, it appears that the Board’s decision was consistent with the undisputed facts and the Board applied the law correctly.

For the foregoing reasons, the Board’s November 7, 2010 decision isAFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] See 19 Del. C. § 3314(1) (“An individual shall be disqualified for benefits [when] the individual left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work.”)

[2] Thompson v. Christiana Care Health System, 25 A.3d 778, 783 (Del. 2011) (“In [an unemployment compensation] context, good cause is established where an employee voluntarily leaves employment for reasons . . . within the employer’s control and under circumstances in which no reasonably prudent employee would have remained.”); see also White v. Security Link, 658 A.2d 619, 622 (Del. Super. 1994) (“Claimant’s resignation [cannot] be attributable to actions taken by her or any third party.”).

Page 1

jdjungle