UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The University of North Florida appealed an unemployment benefits determination, arguing that an employee was discharged for misconduct (falsifying records and making false statements) and therefore ineligible for benefits. The Florida appellate court affirmed the decision awarding benefits, holding that the University failed to present admissible evidence of deliberate misconduct meeting the statutory standard.
The court affirmed the award of unemployment benefits, finding that while some documents (accounting records) might qualify as public records, others lacked a statutory or administrative duty to be created, and even if admissible, the evidence failed to establish the deliberate violations or culpable carelessness required to deny benefits.
[1] The public records exception to the hearsay rule requires that documents either set forth the activities of an office or agency or relate to matters observed pursuant to…
[2] For documents to be admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, a predicate must be laid that the disputed memoranda were entered or made in the re…
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“For this rule to apply, the document must either set forth the activities of an office or agency or must relate to "matters observed pursuant to [a] duty imposed by law as to matters which there was a duty to report,"”
Establishes the legal standard for applying the public records exception to the hearsay rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee was discharged from the University of North Florida, allegedly for making false statements and falsifying records. The University presente…
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 Public Records Exception To Hearsay cases and more on FLexlaw
LARRY G. SMITH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming, without opinion, the appeals referee’s decision that appellee was discharged, but not for misconduct connected with his work, see Section 443.036(24)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), and thus entitled to unemployment benefits. As grounds for reversal, appellant contends that the decision is based upon an erroneous application of the public records exception to the hearsay rule, Section 90.803(8), Florida Statutes (1981), and that there is substantial competent evidence demonstrating misconduct on appellee’s part in the performance of his duties. We affirm.
The ostensible reason for appellee’s discharge was that he allegedly made certain false statements and falsified records. Of course, he denied doing so. The University, for its part, presented no witness with firsthand knowledge of appellee’s involvement or participation in the alleged “misconduct.” It, however, did attempt to introduce through the testimony of the University’s custodian of appellee’s personnel file various documents relating to the firing under the public records exception to the hearsay rule, Section 90.803(8).
For this rule to apply, the document must either set forth the activities of an office or agency or must relate to “matters observed pursuant to [a] duty imposed by law as to matters which there was a duty to report,” Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 429 So. 2d 1216, 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and certain of these documents, such as the accounting records, may arguably fall within the former exception relating to the activities of an office or agency. However, as to the remaining documents we can find no duty imposed by statute or administrative rule that they be made or maintained. See Sikes, supra. Moreover, no predicate had been laid that the disputed memoranda were entered or made in the regular course of the University’s business or that such materials were regularly completed and maintained. Compare CF Chemicals, Inc. v. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 400 So. 2d 846, 848 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981).
Even assuming, however, that such documents were admissible, they still do not prove the misconduct required for a denial of unemployment benefits. The circumstances under which the initial two reprimands were issued do not appear in the record and are dissimilar to the incident for which appellee was discharged. Indeed, the charge upon which the memoranda concluding that appellee had falsified documents were based establishes only that two different persons allocated mail by two different methods, not that appellee actually engaged in falsification of those records. As such, the proof offered for appellee’s alleged misconduct does not meet the high standard of showing “deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior,” or “carelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability.” Section 443.036(24)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1981).
AFFIRMED.
WENTWORTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Mid-State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…akeries, Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 545 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); City of Fort Lauderdale v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 536 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); University of North Florida v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 445 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The fact that an employee does not object to the admissibility of such critical documentary evidence does not preclude an appellate court from considering the sufficiency of the evidence to support the UAC’s decision. See Harris…
-
Sylvina Juste v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 520 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…pose of supplementing or explaining other evidence, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil action.” Accord University of North Florida v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 445 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Pasco County School Board v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 353 So. 2d 108, 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). For evidence to be admissible under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, it must be offered in strict compliance…1 / 2
-
Desmond v. Medic Ayers Nursing Home & Brown & Brown Self Insured Servs., 492 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…to report the results of field investigators’ findings concerning conditions at MANH to the HRS licensing office together with his recommendations pursuant to those investigations. See: University of North Florida v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 445 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 429 So. 2d 1216, 1220-1222 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, we reverse both points raised in this appeal and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. WENTWORTH…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sikes v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 429 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Huggins v. State, 400 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)