IRA A. ERBER, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND UNEMPLOYMENT SECURITY, STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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.
An employer discharged a fleet supervisor for procedural violations in handling a subordinate's resignation, but the court held that his actions, though perhaps warranting termination, did not constitute 'misconduct' under Florida unemployment law because he was acting in the employer's interests without willful or wanton disregard.
The court held that Erber's actions did not constitute misconduct warranting denial of unemployment benefits. Although his actions may have warranted his dismissal, they did not evince the willful, wanton disregard, culpability, or evil design required by statute because he was acting in the employer's interests without substantial disregard of the employer's interests.
[1] An employee's actions, even if they warrant dismissal, do not automatically disqualify them from receiving unemployment benefits.
[2] Misconduct, for the purposes of unemployment benefits, requires a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests, or carelessness or negligence demonstrating culp…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“'Misconduct' includes, but is not limited to, the following, which shall not be construed in pari materia with each other: a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee; or b) Carelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer.”
This is the statutory definition of misconduct that must be established to disqualify an employee from unemployment benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Erber worked as a fleet supervisor at Federal Express. When he discovered an employee falsifying time records, Erber confronted the employee…
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 Intentional And Substantial Disregard Of Employer'S Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which denied the appellant unemployment compensation. We have jurisdiction under section 120.68(2), Florida Statutes (1981), and we reverse the order. Appellant was employed by Federal Express as a fleet supervisor, in charge of vehicle maintenance. One of the employees appellant supervised was caught falsifying his time records. When confronted by appellant and the City Manager of the Orlando Federal Express office, the employee was given the choice of either resigning or being discharged. The employee chose to resign and listed “personal reasons” as the reason for his resignation.
In accordance with company procedure the employee had an “exit interview” with appellant’s supervisor who then discovered the “resign or be fired” choice the employee had to make. This supervisor determined appellant had acted improperly in failing to inform the company of the real reason for the termination and in failing to follow proper procedure requiring discussion of planned disciplinary actions with supervisors. On a Friday evening appellant was instructed to reinstate the employee effective that Sunday evening. Upon receiving those instructions appellant called an officer of the company and protested the instructions. That officer said he would look into the matter and discuss it with the appellant on Monday. On Monday the officer told appellant to reinstate the employee, which he did.
Appellant was discharged by Federal Express for misconduct. The statute provides that no unemployment benefits may be received if an employee is discharged for misconduct. Sec. 443.101(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Misconduct is defined in the statute as:
‘Misconduct’ includes, but is not limited to, the following, which shall not be construed in pari materia with each other:
a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee; or b) Carelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. The commission through its appeals referee found that appellant had violated three orders or procedures of the employer. Quoting from the referee, “Those were: not discussing planned disciplinary action with his supervisor; not informing his supervisors of the real reason for discharge; and failure to reinstate the mechanic immediately. Therefore it can only be concluded that the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with work.”
The referee also found “The (appellant’s) actions in attempting to protect the employer’s interests by stopping what he felt was falsification of time records is laudable.”
We agree with all that the referee found and disagree only in the application of the facts and findings to the statutory law, set out above. In our opinion the actions of the appellant do not amount to such willful and wanton disregard, or culpability or evil design, etc. to warrant a disallowance of unemployment benefits. See Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). Here the appellant seemed to be acting only in the best interests of the employer and although probably misguided in his actions he was not acting willfully, wantonly or with such a substantial disregard of the employer’s interests as to warrant the denial of benefits under the statute. Just because his actions may have warranted his dismissal from employment does not mean he cannot receive unemployment benefits.
The order of the commission is quashed and the commission is directed to award the unemployment benefits to appellant.
ORDER QUASHED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Hummer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 573 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The courts have recognized that certain actions of employees, although warranting termination, do not constitute misconduct precluding unemployment compensation. For example, in Erber v. Federal Express Corporation, 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), this court found that the actions of the employee did not warrant the disallowance of unemployment benefits. In that case, Erber had failed to follow proper company procedures for disciplining an employee he supervised. Although…
-
Smith v. Eilon Krugman-Kadi & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 547 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ccasions which did not amount to the willful or wanton disregard of employee duty required by the statute. The claimant failed to report a drunken employee and inappropriately relinquished a key to a secured area. In Erber v. Federal Express Corp., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) the claimant was discharged when he gave a subordinate a resign or be fired option after the claimant discovered the subordinate was falsifying time cards. The referee found that the claimant failed to discuss planned disciplinar…
-
Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…duct does not necessarily constitute a willful and wanton or deliberate violation so as to constitute misconduct precluding compensation. Williams v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 484 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Erber v. Federal Express Corp., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as a result of inability or incapacity, inad-vertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith error in judgment or discretion do not co…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)