ANNA ROSA, APPELLANT,
v.
JEFFERSON'S STORES, INC., AND 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.
Anna Rosa appeals the denial of her unemployment compensation claim after she was terminated for allowing her son to use her employee discount card in violation of store policy. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirms the denial, finding that credibility determinations by the appeals referee are supported by substantial evidence.
The court affirmed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits, holding that the appeals referee's credibility determination rejecting Rosa's testimony is supported by competent, substantial evidence and entitled to deference on appeal.
[1] An employee's violation of a known employer policy regarding employee discounts can be grounds for termination.
[2] An appeals referee is the proper fact finder to determine the credibility of conflicting testimony in an unemployment compensation benefits claim.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — verbatim audit could not classify this quote (LLM classifier failed to produce valid JSON, or wrapper verification failed). Treat as unverified.]”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate courts regarding credibility determinations by the fact finder in administrative proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJefferson's Stores had a policy allowing employee discounts only for employees and immediate family members residing in the employee's home. Rosa gave…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of an unemployment compensation benefits claim. We affirm. The employer had a policy which allowed discounts to employees and to members of their immediate family residing in the home of the employee. Appellant was well aware of this store, policy when she allowed her son to use her discount card. The factual question was whether the son was residing in the home of his mother. Appellant was terminated because she allowed her son to use her discount card.
The matter was presented to the appeals referee on the basis of conflicting evidence. At least one witness, a store supervisor, testified that appellant herself had previously stated her son had married, bought a home, and moved to a different city. When the appellant gave the card to her son, the same store supervisor told her she should not do so. Appellant was confronted and questioned regarding the incident immediately after giving the card to her son, and at that time she told another store supervisor that she did not know of the policy, and she offered to repay the money involved. Appellant did not say that her son lived in her home when she was initially confronted nor when her employment was later terminated. Eventually, while attempting to regain her job, she said her son was staying in her home temporarily due to a marital spat.
The appeals referee noted the existence of conflicting testimony and specifically chose not to accept the appellant’s testimony. The question was one of credibility. Our function, as a reviewing court, is not to decide whether we believe appellant to have told the truth before the appeals referee. Questions of credibility are for the fact finder. The order below is supported by competent, substantial evidence, and is hereby affirmed. Bagwell Lumber Company v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 358 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
AFFIRMED.
HURLEY, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
dissenting:
In my view the only evidence before the referee was that Mrs. Rosa’s son did reside with her at the critical time. It appears that Mrs. Rosa was the victim of a misunderstanding resulting from her impaired hearing, which required the use of a hearing aid, and her emotional response upon being confronted after the incident took place. I realize that the hearing officer is the one to determine the credibility of witnesses, but I simply do not feel that her testimony and the documentary evidence of the son’s residence with her was sufficiently impeached to permit the officer to reject that evidence. That being the case I would reverse the Commission decision and direct that the appellant’s claim be allowed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Reason Ford, Jr. v. Se. Atl. Corp. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 588 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…Co. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 463 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (employee who admitted kissing minor female employee on the cheek during working hours in violation of company policy was guilty of misconduct); Rosa v. Jefferson’s Stores, Inc., 421 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (employee who allowed her son to use her employee discount card against company policy was guilty of misconduct). Moreover, although there is case law which stands for the proposition that a single negligent act cannot support a…
-
Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 664 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…& Co. v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 463 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (employee who admitted kissing minor female employee on the cheek during working hours in violation of company policy was guilty of misconduct); Rosa v. Jefferson’s Stores, Inc., 421 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (employee who allowed her son to use her employee discount card against company policy was guilty of misconduct). Ford, 588 So. 2d at 1041. Other cases seem to require repeated acts of disobedience: Rubido v. Brinks, Inc., 601…
-
McCARTY v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & St. Augustine Trains, Inc., 878 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…Co. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 463 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (employee who admitted kissing minor female employee on the cheek during working hours in violation of company policy was guilty of misconduct); Rosa v. Jefferson’s Stores, Inc., 421 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (employee who allowed her son to use her employee discount card against company policy was guilty of misconduct). Moreover, although there is case law which stands for the proposition that a single negligent act cannot support a…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence