JAMES A. LAMB, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND DUMP-ALL, INC., 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.
James Lamb was terminated by his employer Dump-All, Inc. for failing to report to work without calling in advance. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission denied his unemployment benefits, finding he was fired for misconduct. The appellate court reversed, holding that a single unexplained absence due to unforeseen moving complications, where the employee could not telephone due to phone transfer problems, does not constitute willful or wanton misconduct under Florida's unemployment compensation law.
Lamb's conduct does not constitute misconduct warranting disallowance of unemployment benefits because his actions did not amount to willful and wanton disregard of his employer's rules. The court held that the circumstances—a single, unexplained first offense caused by unforeseen events and inability to communicate—do not manifest the deliberate violation or disregard of standards required by the statutory definition of misconduct.
[1] Unemployment compensation benefits may be denied for misconduct, defined as conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests or carelessness and…
[2] An employee's failure to report to work and call in due to unforeseen circumstances, such as moving and a telephone transfer, may not constitute willful or wanton disrega…
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 actions for which Lamb was fired do not amount to a willful and wanton disregard of his employer's rules, and as such they do not constitute misconduct warranting a disallowance of unemployment benefits”
The court's holding that Lamb's single absence did not meet the statutory definition of misconduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLamb worked as a truck driver for Dump-All, Inc., a refuse company with strict attendance rules requiring employees to call in before missing work or …
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 Definition Of Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
This is an appeal from the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission’s determination that Lamb is not entitled to receive unemployment compensation because he was fired by his employer for misconduct. Because we do not think Lamb’s conduct as disclosed by the record falls within the definition of misconduct under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law,1 we reverse. Swope v. Florida Industrial Commission Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 159 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
Lamb was a truck driver for Dump-All, Inc., a refuse company. Dump-All had strict rules for attendance. If an employee failed to appear for work or call in prior to an absence, he was subject to immediate dismissal. Lamb spent the weekend of October 2, 1981, moving into his new home. Unforeseen problems required Lamb to remain at his new home on Monday, October 5, 1981, and he was not able to call his employer because his telephone was in transfer at that time. Because Lamb did not report to work as scheduled on that Monday, Dump-All immediately terminated Lamb’s employment.
The record shows that this was the first and only time Lamb had failed to appear for work without calling his employer. The circumstances of his move and his explanation for not telephoning make his argument plausible that his breach of the employer’s rules was less than deliberate and willful. Further, the employer did not controvert Lamb's explanations, and it was apparently not harmed by Lamb’s absence on October 5, 1981. In our opinion the actions for which Lamb was fired do not amount to a willful and wanton disregard of his employer’s rules, and as such they do not constitute misconduct warranting a disallowance of unemployment benefits. Erber v. Federal Express Corporation, 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
REVERSED.
COBB, J., and SMITH C. McFERRIN, Associate Judge, concur. . Misconduct is defined under the Unemployment Compensation Law as:
(a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest 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 and 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 interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. §§ 443.036(24)(a) & (b), Fla.Stat. (1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Hummer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 573 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…or wanton disregard of employee duty which would support a denial of unemployment benefits. The courts have also concluded that mere absenteeism is insufficient to warrant denial of benefits. For example, in Lamb v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 424 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), Lamb was fired because he failed to appear for work or call his employer to report his absence. Lamb had spent the weekend moving into his new home, unforeseen problems required him to stay at home and his telephone was not work…
-
Barragan v. Williams Island, 568 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…misconduct as in Goldstein v. Ury Kalai, M.D., P.A., 480 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); nor is this a case where there was an occasional and isolated failure to report to work due to exigent circumstances as in Lamb v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 424 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). No “family emergency” justified an isolated unexcused absence as in Campbell v. Department of Labor & Employment Sec., 455 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The employee was not warned that further absences would subject him to di…
-
Etta M. Goldstein v. URY Kalai, M.D., P.A., 480 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…med ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of the statute.’ ” Fort Myers Pump, 373 So. 2d at 431 (emphasis added, citations omitted); Fredericks v. Fla. Dept. of Commerce, 323 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Thus, in Lamb v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 424 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), a finding that an employee’s missing a day of work without calling in constituted misconduct was reversed where he had never previously done this and where he did not call his employer because he was moving to a new residence an…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Ira A. Erber v. Fed. Express Corp. & Dep't of Labor & Unemployment Sec., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Swope v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n Unemployment Comp. Bd. OF Review & Jackson's-Byron Dep't Store, 159 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)