Keri's practice is devoted to Delaware workers' compensation and employment law defense (including discrimination and whistleblower protection), in addition to federal employment law defense. Throughout her legal career, she has represented clients including automobile assembly plants, nursing homes, hospitals, security companies and retailers in matters pertaining to workers' compensation and employment law. She is also experienced in handling matters for non-profits and fast food franchises, and advising clients in relation to owner controlled insurance policies. Keri is especially adept at assisting and educating small employers on issues pertaining to workers' compensation.
In addition to managing the Workers' Compensation Department in the Wilmington office, Keri has also served as a member of the firm's Executive Committee Advisory Council, a distinguished group of firm leaders whose purpose is to enhance the communication between the Executive Committee and younger members of the firm's professional ranks.
While attending Widener University School of Law, Keri worked for the Delaware Department of Labor, where she handled a wide variety of employment, labor and civil rights issues. Keri investigated allegations of employment discrimination and wage and hour violations, including alleged prevailing wage violations and child labor violations.
Keri is a graduate of the University of Delaware, where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Criminal Justice. She remains involved with her alma mater, serving as an advisor for the Alpha Sigma Alpha sorority.
Results
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Court Finds Employee Was Not a Qualified Individual Under the ADA
November 3, 2026
In Williams v. Walmart, Inc., Cameron Williams, proceeding pro se, alleged wrongful discharge due to disability and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Delaware Persons with Disabilities Employment Protections Act (DPDEPA) and retaliation under the Delaware workers' compensation law, against Walmart, after being terminated on September 17, 2022. Williams sustained a work-related low back injury on July 23, 2022, while working in a physically demanding role that required lifting up to 60 pounds, prolonged standing, and climbing. After his injury, he was given work restrictions and Walmart offered Williams several positions under its Temporary Alternate Duty (TAD) program to accommodate these medical restrictions. During the period June through September 2022, Williams accrued seven unauthorized absences. Under Walmart's Attendance Policy, accumulating five or more occurrences in a rolling six-month period subjects an employee to termination. Williams applied for a leave of absence through Walmart’s third-party administrator. The leave request was denied for lack of medical documentation. Williams was terminated for violating the attendance policy. The Court granted Walmart summary judgment on all claims. The disability and failure to accommodate claims failed because Williams admitted his medical restrictions prevented him from performing the essential functions of his prior position. The Court found that Williams was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA. Further, Walmart accommodated his restrictions by offering him several Alternate Duty positions. Williams workers' compensation retaliation claim failed because there was no evidence of a causal connection between Williams’ comp claim and his termination. The retaliation claims under the disability statutes also failed because filing a workers' compensation claim is not a protected activity. The Court also found that Williams’ leave of absence request was managed by a third-party administrator with no link to Walmart's personnel decisions. This is a positive case for Employers. Employers should: Maintain clear, written descriptions of the physically demanding requirements of each job (e.g., lifting limits, standing durations, and climbing requirements). This will assist the Court in evaluating whether a Plaintiff can perform the essential functions of the position. Offer temporary, modified roles that align with an employee's medical restrictions to show evidence of an employer's efforts to accommodate. Ongoing efforts to offer positions within any work restrictions will assist with insulating the Employer from failure-to-accommodate liability. Maintain neutral attendance policies and apply them consistently. This will provide evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination. When applied uniformly, this should prevent Plaintiffs from arguing that the policy was used as a pretext for discrimination. Use Third-Party Administrators for leave management. When a third party makes the leave decisions, this protects the Employer from retaliation claims. When a third party makes the decisions on whether to approve leave requests, it becomes difficult for an employee to establish a causal relationship between the request and subsequent disciplinary action. Require complete medical documentation. Ensure that any requests for medical leaves of absence are backed by sufficient, timely documentation. Failure of an employee to comply with a request for the required medical documentation by a deadline will provide a legally defensible practice.
What's Hot in Workers' Comp
Delaware Supreme Court Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Claim Based on Witness Credibility
September 22, 2026
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a Superior Court decision upholding the Industrial Accident Board's denial of a petition for workers' compensation benefits. The Court ruled that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence, deferring to the Board's findings regarding witness credibility and medical expert testimony. Prince Parker worked for The Borsello Companies, Inc., where his duties included operating a forklift and mixing mortar. He alleged a lumbar spine injury on February 19, 2024 and reported his injury immediately, although the company denied receiving any such report. It was not until ten days later, on February 29, 2024, Parker sent a text message to a project manager stating his work activities were "screwing [his] back up." Parker was advised to contact the company president. There was no evidence he did and continued his normal work activities. In mid-March 2024, Parker was terminated for insubordination. On March 21, 2024, over a month after the alleged work incident, Parker went to the emergency room for back pain. Emergency room records reflected Parker reported his back pain had been ongoing for over a year, denied any recent trauma, and stated he had not followed up on a prior referral to see a specialist. After the employer denied the claim for benefits, Parker filed a petition with the Board seeking wage loss benefits and payment of outstanding medical bills. The Board heard conflicting medical expert testimony and testimony from the claimant and employer witnesses. The Board, after hearing the testimony, denied Parker's petition, finding that he failed to establish a compensable injury. They did not find Parker’s testimony credible that he suffered a work injury. The Superior Court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court addressed and rejected several challenges raised by Parker. Most importantly, the court emphasized that under Delaware law, the Board has exclusive responsibility for weighing evidence, determining witness credibility, and resolving conflicts in testimony. The court deferred to the Board's decision to find Parker’s testimony not credible due to his ten-day delay in reporting back pain, his failure to seek immediate medical treatment, and his emergency room statements denying recent trauma. Since the claimant’s expert relied on the information from Parker, his opinion was discredited. The Board properly found the defense expert’s opinion more persuasive. It is extremely important to ascertain all information related to when the alleged injury occurred, how it occurred and determine if the injured worker is providing the same version of events to the medical providers and the claims handler. Cases turn on credibility and the Board is tasked with making those findings.
