NELSON SANCHEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 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.
Sanchez appealed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits based on a finding of employee misconduct. The court affirmed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's decision, finding substantial evidence supporting the misconduct determination based on Sanchez's pattern of chronic tardiness, failure to meet minimum work hours, verbal altercations with coworkers, and unauthorized absence for elective surgery.
The court affirmed the referee's determination that Sanchez engaged in misconduct sufficient to disqualify him from unemployment compensation. The pattern of chronic tardiness, consistent failure to meet minimum work hour requirements, verbal altercations, and unauthorized absence for non-emergency reasons constituted substantial evidence of willful misconduct.
[1] An unemployment compensation denial based on employee misconduct must be affirmed if supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] Habitual tardiness, especially after warnings, can constitute willful misconduct disqualifying an employee from unemployment benefits.
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“We must affirm the referee's determination of misconduct if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to misconduct determinations in unemployment compensation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez worked at Larkin General Hospital for approximately four months. Throughout his employment, he engaged in frequent verbal altercations with ot…
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 Unauthorized Absence cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Sanchez seeks reversal of an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission upholding a referee’s finding which denied unemployment compensation benefits on the basis of employee misconduct. We must affirm the referee’s determination of misconduct if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. CF Chemicals, Inc. v. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 400 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Catholic Social Services v. Florida Department of Commerce, 365 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Sanchez was employed for a period of approximately four months at Larkin General Hospital in Miami. The record reveals that, aside from engaging in frequent verbal altercations with other hospital employees, Sanchez fought a constant, losing battle with the time clock. Indeed, the record demonstrates that although Sanchez agreed to work a minimum of forty hours per week, he did not satisfy this requirement in any week of the entire four-month period.
The denouement of Sanchez’ employment occurred with an unauthorized absence from “work.” Sanchez asserted as a justification for the missed days, that he undertook during his truancy to undergo elective surgery to repair a deviated septum. There is medical support in the record indicating that the surgery was not of such an emergent nature as to require remedial attention without first obtaining the approval of a supervisor. Sanchez was discharged from his employment at Larkin General Hospital prior to his being discharged from nasal surgery at Palm Springs General Hospital.
Sanchez’ occupational problems have been recognized by various courts as warranting disqualification from compensation benefits. In Chapman v. Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, 104 So. 2d 201 (La.App.1958), a roofer’s helper was terminated from employment for arriving late on three mornings during three weeks of work. Affirming a subsequent denial of unemployment compensation, the court stated: “From time immemorial promptness in reporting to work has been regarded as essential to the proper conduct of an employer’s business, and tardiness has been accepted as sufficient grounds for the termination of employer-employee relationship.” 104 So. 2d at 203-204.
A similar pattern of employee belligerence was reprimanded in Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Glenn, 23 Pa.Commw.Ct. 240, 350 A. 2d 890 (1976), wherein it was determined that: “Habitual tardiness, particularly after warnings that a termination of services may result if the practice continues, is sufficient evidence of an employee’s disregard of the employer’s interest to sustain a finding of willful misconduct.” 350 A. 2d at 892. See Malliet v. Levine, 52 A.D.2d 1026, 383 N.Y.S.2d 690 (1976); De Scetto v. Levine, 51 A.D.2d 1100, 381 N.Y.S.2d 356 (1976).
Likewise, the discharge of an employee for misconduct in failing to comply with a forty-hour workweek has been held to constitute a valid reason for denying a compensation claim. Nathanson v. Levine, 51 A.D.2d 1100, 381 N.Y.S.2d 358 (1976).
Additionally, an unauthorized absence from work for personal reasons not of a critical nature may comprise employee misconduct justifying a refusal of compensation. Florida Junior College at Jacksonville v. Florida Department of Labor, Division of Employment Security, 381 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); City of Riviera Beach v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 372 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
When viewed against this legal background, the record in this case clearly evinces substantial evidence in support of disqualifying Sanchez from eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Selvin G. Hines v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…979). Accordingly, we must affirm the referee’s determination of misconduct if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. Sanchez v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, State of Florida, Unemployment Appeals Commission, 411 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accord Lundy’s Market, Inc. v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 373 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 354 S…
-
Mason v. Load King Mfg. Co. & the Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 758 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2000)…o this case. In our view, although excessive absenteeism or tardiness may constitute misconduct which justifies termination of employment and therefore precludes collection of unemployment compensation benefits, Sanchez v. Department of Labor, Etc., 411 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), an employer has the burden under section 443.036(24), Florida Statutes, to show misconduct with a preponderance of proof that the absences were indeed unexcusable and in detriment to the employer’s interests. Id. at 1218. Howeve…1 / 3
-
Etta M. Goldstein v. URY Kalai, M.D., P.A., 480 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…, intentional disregard of the employer’s standards and interests or negligence of such an extreme nature as to show substantial disregard of the employee’s duties to the employer. See, for example, Sanchez v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Security, 411 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (misconduct justified denial of benefits where during four months’ employment with hospital, employee never worked scheduled forty-hour week, was repeatedly tardy, and took time off work to have elective surgery without prior appr…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Huggins v. State, 400 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Catholic Soc. Servs. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 365 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- City OF Riviera Beach v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 372 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Fla. Legal Servs., Inc. v. State, 381 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Fla. Junior Coll. AT Jacksonville v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor, 381 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)