EDDIE TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND OCEAN REEF CLUB, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Eddie Taylor was denied unemployment benefits by a claims examiner after being discharged for missing work without calling in sick on December 30, 1978. The Unemployment Appeals Commission reversed the appeals referee's decision that Taylor was entitled to benefits, but the District Court of Appeal reversed the Commission, finding the referee's factual findings supported by substantial competent evidence and reinstating the award of benefits.
The appeals referee's finding that Taylor was entitled to benefits must be upheld because it was supported by substantial competent evidence, reversing the Unemployment Appeals Commission's determination that the failure to call in sick constituted misconduct.
[1] An appeals referee's factual findings, supported by substantial competent evidence, must be upheld.
[2] An employee's failure to personally report an absence due to illness, when a third party customarily reports the absence, may not constitute misconduct disqualifying them…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The decision of the appeals referee was supported by substantial competent evidence, Florida Industrial Commission v. Ciarlante, 84 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1955); Catholic Social Services v. State Department of Commerce, 365 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and must therefore be upheld.”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's conclusion that the referee's factual findings were properly supported
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor was employed by Ocean Reef Club as a lawn crew laborer starting May 13, 1975, and was promoted to crew chief within two months. He was consider…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Appellant Eddie Taylor’s claim for unemployment compensation benefits was denied by a claims examiner. An appeals referee reversed that decision. The Unemployment Appeals Commission reversed the referee’s decision. We now reverse the decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission.
The appeals referee, sitting as the finder of fact, Lundy’s Market, Inc. v. Florida Department of Commerce, 373 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), determined the facts to be as follows:
The claimant became employed by employer ... a private resort club, as a lawn crew laborer, on May 13, 1975. The claimant was considered to be a good worker, and within two months was promoted to the position of crew chief. Pri-or to July, 1978, the claimant was considered to be an excellent worker, with a very good attendance record.
However, in July, 1978, the claimant received a severe stab injury to his arm while off the job. The claimant utilized his vacation time to recuperate from his injury, but was also compelled to take several days off from work in addition to his vacation time. The claimant subsequently began to be absent from work more frequently because his arm did not properly heal, and because the extreme physical nature of his work, which included cutting grass, trimming trees, and edg ing, seemed to aggrevate [sic]-the injury to his arm. The claimant was advised by the department supervisor to telephone the landscaping office on each occasion that he was to be absent from work. The claimant’s girlfriend, with whom the claimant lived, always telephoned the employer to report the claimant’s absences. The claimant was admonished by the department supervisor on at least one occasion that he was absent from work too much.
On December 29, 1978, the assistant supervisor informed the claimant and all other employees that they were to report for work on Saturday, December 30, 1978, so that they could have January 2, 1979, off from work as a holiday, in áddition to Monday. The claimant did not report for work on December 30, 1978, because he was ill. The claimant did not notify the employer of his absence because he was sick. The claimant’s girlfriend did not telephone the employer to report the claimant’s absence because she was too busy. When the claimant reported for work on January 3, 1979, he was discharged by the department supervisor. The Commission concluded that claimant’s failure to call in sick on the date in question was misconduct.
We find the decision of the appeals referee was supported by substantial competent evidence, Florida Industrial Commission v. Ciarlante, 84 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1955); Catholic Social Services v. State Department of Commerce, 365 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and must therefore be upheld. Lundy’s Market, Inc. v. Florida Department of Commerce, supra.
The decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission is therefore reversed, and the decision of the referee is reinstated.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
David Clark & Assocs., Inc. v. Lowell E. Kennedy, Jr., 390 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…ocial Services v. State Dept. of Commerce, Board of Review, 365 So. 2d 427, 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The UAC cannot reverse a referee when his decision is based on competent substantial evidence. Taylor v. State Dept. of Labor & Employment Security, 383 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980); General Telephone Co. of Florida v. Board of Review, 356 So. 2d 1357, 1358 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978). The reason for this is that the hearing officer or appeals referee in an administrative proceeding is the trier of fact, and…
-
Forkey & Kirsch, P. A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…1st DCA 1978). The UAC cannot re weigh evidence or reverse a referee when his decision is based on substantial competent evidence. Citrus Central v. Detwiler, 368 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Taylor v. State Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 383 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); McCray v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 384 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); David Clark & Associates, Inc. v. Kennedy, supra. We find the decision of the appeals referee was supported by substantial competent evi…
-
Wyche v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 469 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…eree’s determinations. Forkey & Kirsch, P.A. v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); David Clark & Associates v. Kennedy, 390 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Taylor v. State, Department of Labor & Employment Security, 383 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The Commission did not refute the referee’s finding that Wyche was provoked into fighting or rule that the referee’s decision was not based on substantial competent evidence; instead, the Commission declared that Wyche’s subseque…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Indus. Comm'n v. Ciarlante, 84 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1955)
- Catholic Soc. Servs. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 365 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Mathis v. State, 373 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Lundy's Mkt., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 373 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)