She accused Weller of “attempting to use this unemployment appeal to argue allegations of attorney and law firm misconduct that arose outside of the unemployment case, are not within the jurisdiction of the division, and should be raised before the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, not in this unemployment appeal.”
In a March filing, the division argued that the Supreme Court should deny Weller’s bid to revive his unemployment benefits claim, asserting that the state’s Superior Court correctly upheld the denial of pay after he settled whistleblower claims against the firm.
Separation Agreement Dispute
Superior Court Judge Ferris W. Wharton ruled in late November that the board didn’t err in determining that a separation agreement between Weller and Morris James, which provided him with one year’s salary of $94,450, amounted to severance pay and wages under the Delaware Unemployment Code. Weller argued in an opening brief in February that the Superior Court judge misinterpreted the separation agreement, asserting that the term “wages” was only used as a guide for the settlement payment. He also claimed that Morris James admitted the payment was a settlement, not severance, by failing to correct this assertion during multiple proceedings.
Del Paralegal En Banc Call: Response from Parties
In an email to Law360 on Thursday, Weller called Counihan’s letter “strange,” stating, “The only party objecting is the DOL, who was not a party to either the settlement agreement or a witness to the referenced misconduct.” He added, “It is strange that DOL is doing the bidding for Morris James, while ignoring the fact that the underlying settlement agreement and related briefing dealt with the issue of Morris James and its attorneys violating a Delaware labor law (Delaware Whistleblowers’ Protection Act). Perhaps, DOL could be utilizing their efforts in conducting an investigation into those facts, rather than objecting to the purpose of a settlement agreement for which they were not a part of.”
