CO-TRAN, FLORIDA TRANSIT MANAGEMENT, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LORENZO GOODMAN AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND UNEMPLOYMENT SECURITY, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Co-Tran, a bus company, appealed an unemployment compensation award to an employee discharged for losing his chauffeur's license due to traffic violations. The court reversed, holding that an employee's conduct causing revocation of a required professional license constitutes misconduct connected with work, disqualifying him from unemployment benefits.
The court held that an employee's traffic violations causing revocation of a required chauffeur's license constitute misconduct connected with work, disqualifying the employee from unemployment benefits. The employee's lack of knowledge of the revocation does not alter this conclusion.
[1] A bus operator's revocation of a chauffeur's license due to traffic violations constitutes misconduct connected with work for unemployment compensation purposes.
[2] An employee's unawareness of a license revocation does not negate the fact of the revocation itself when determining misconduct connected with work.
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“While the mere fact of a suspension or revocation does not necessarily imply misconduct, the evidence in this case clearly shows that the claimant, during the course of his employment, did through an accumulation of traffic offenses cause the revocation of his license.”
The referee's reasoning that the accumulation of traffic violations causing the license revocation constitutes misconduct connected with work.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employee was a bus operator required to maintain a valid chauffeur's license as a condition of employment. His license was revoked in August 1980 …
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 Unemployment Compensation Benefits Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
The employer bus company, Co-Tran, Florida Transit Management, Inc., appeals an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission entitling one of the employer’s employees to unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.
Appellee-employee, a bus operator for the employer company, was required to maintain a valid chauffeur’s license as a condition of employment. On an occasion prior to the incident which led to his discharge, his license was suspended and he was suspended from employment for as long as his license was invalid.
The critical incident occurred in January of 1981 when the employee, who was stopped for speeding, could not produce his chauffeur’s license because, he said, he did not have it with him. In contradiction thereof the record of the State Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles revealed a revocation of the employee’s license in August of 1980. The employee, who denied any knowledge of the revocation, said he had been fined in Georgia in August of 1980 for driving while intoxicated, although he said he had not been intoxicated at the time. The referee, finding in favor of the employer, made the following determination:
Consideration has been given to the contention that the claimant was unaware of the revocation and therefore was unable to notify the employer of same; however, this does not alter the fact that his license had indeed been revoked. While the mere fact of a suspension or revocation does not necessarily imply misconduct, the evidence in this case clearly shows that the claimant, during the course of his employment, did through an accumulation of traffic offenses cause the revocation of his license. Thus, it must be held that the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with work.
This determination was supported by substantial, competent evidence and should have been upheld by the commission. §§ 120.57(lXb)(9) & 443.07(4)(c), Fla.Stat. (1979); CF Chemicals, Inc. v. Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security, 400 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Board of County Commissioners v. Florida Department of Commerce, 370 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Instead, the commission overlooked the paramount fact that the employee’s license had been revoked for driving violations and the common sense determination that a revocation of a bus driver’s chauffeur’s license for those violations was misconduct connected with work. In its order and brief the commission focused only upon the employee’s uncontradicted testimony that he did not know his license had been revoked. It concluded the referee erred by finding the employee’s failure to inform his employer of the revocation constituted misconduct.
The facts here indicate the employee’s traffic violations caused the loss of his chauffeur’s license and the commission’s order required the employer to pay the discharged employee unemployment benefits. Such a decision cannot be permitted to stand. If under these circumstances the employer has to pay, then when can an employer discharge, without being obligated to pay for benefits, an employee whose repeated rules violations vitiate the basic requirements of his employment and render him useless to his employer?
REVERSED.
ANSTEAD and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rycraft v. United Techs. & Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 449 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…; Sanchez v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, State of Florida, Unemployment Appeals Commission, 411 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). This court has reversed a finding of no misconduct in Co-Tran, Florida Transit Management, Inc. v. Goodman, 415 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), where a bus driver was fired because his driver’s license had been revoked for traffic violations. The UAC had held him not disqualified because he claimed he did not know of the revocation, so that he had not intentionally fail…
-
Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n v. City OF Homestead & the Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n, 444 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…kly detect and repair malfunctioning meters and leaks in water lines, minimizing lost revenues and assuring customers of more accurate billing while reducing utility’s working capital requirements); Co-Tran, Fla. Transit Management, Inc. v. Goodman, 415 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (whether bus driver's discharge from employment was for misconduct connected with the employment); Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 410 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (whether employee used company fac…
-
Evac Ambulance v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 509 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…portation. The court held that the employee had voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer where the employee’s car had been repossessed, making him unable to meet a condition of employment. In Cotran v. Goodman, 415 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) the court held that it is common sense that the revocation of a bus driver’s license for traffic offenses amounts to misconduct. Similarly in the instant case the paramedic was aware that his DUI conviction, which he failed to r…
Authorities Cited
- Huggins v. State, 400 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 370 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)