## Facts

- Mercedes Petty worked for about six years as a custodian for the University of Delaware, performing physically demanding cleaning tasks, including lifting, climbing, prolonged standing, moving furniture, and handling bulk trash.
- During the second month of pregnancy, Petty developed bleeding problems.
- Petty’s physician restricted her from lifting, climbing, or standing for prolonged periods and recommended reassignment if those conditions were part of her job.
- The University concluded Petty could not perform her custodial duties under the medical restrictions and found no alternative position for which she was qualified given her experience and lack of clerical/secretarial training.
- The University placed Petty on unpaid maternity leave for the duration of the restrictions, continued some benefits, and allowed her to return when restrictions ended.
- Petty applied for unemployment compensation.
- A claims officer denied benefits; an appeals referee granted benefits; the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed and denied benefits under 19 Del. C. § 3314(3) for lack of ability and availability to work.
- The Superior Court affirmed the Board; Petty appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Petty was not “able to work” and not “available for work” under 19 Del. C. § 3314(3) during the period of pregnancy-related medical restrictions.
2. Whether the unemployment statute’s liberal construction required awarding benefits despite the statutory prerequisites in § 3314(3).

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment sustaining the Board’s denial of benefits.
- The Court held there was substantial evidence that Petty was not able to perform any job for which she was qualified during the restriction period.
- The Court also held there was substantial evidence that Petty was not available for suitable work because her limitations and qualifications prevented genuine attachment to the labor market.
- The Court rejected the contention that liberal construction permitted ignoring § 3314(3)’s express requirements and applied deferential substantial-evidence review to the Board’s factfinding.

## Legal Principles

- Under 19 Del. C. § 3314(3), eligibility requires that a claimant be both “able to work” and “available for work”; the requirements are distinct and cumulative.
- “Able to work” may be assessed in relation to jobs for which the claimant is reasonably qualified in the actual labor market, not merely in the abstract.
- “Available for work” turns on whether the claimant is genuinely attached to the labor market for suitable employment given the claimant’s skills, experience, and physical limitations.
- A claimant whose medical restrictions bar performance of the only types of work for which the claimant is trained or experienced, with no showing of other suitable qualified work, may be found ineligible.
- On judicial review, the Board’s findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence and if the Board applied the correct legal standard; liberal construction does not override express statutory prerequisites.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of unemployment benefits because substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that, during her pregnancy-related restrictions, Petty was neither able nor available for suitable work within the labor market given her limited qualifications and physically based work history, as required by 19 Del. C. § 3314(3).


Petty v. University of Del., 450 A.2d 392 (Del. 1982)