THERESA H. COTTON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND POPPA JAY'S, 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.
The court held that the claimant's actions did not constitute misconduct disqualifying her from unemployment benefits.
The claimant, an assistant manager, was discharged for violating a company policy regarding family discounts. A trainee erroneously gave a discount to…
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.
COBB, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which affirmed a referee’s denial of unemployment benefits to the appellant/claimant, Theresa H. Cotton.
Cotton was discharged from a restaurant, Poppa Jay’s, where she was employed as an assistant manager, on the basis that she violated the company family discount policy, which prohibited the customary 20% family discount to members of an employee’s family while that employee was on duty behind the counter. A trainee, working under the supervision of Cotton, erroneously granted the discount to Cotton’s husband while Cotton was on duty behind the counter. Cotton was not aware of the error until half an hour later; at that time she initialled the ticket and did not correct the error. It was established policy at the restaurant that when customers were undercharged, they would not be asked for additional money and the mistake would be written off as “promotional.” It was the testimony of Cotton at the hearing that in this instance of an erroneous discount ($.98), she followed the policy applicable to a mistake in undercharges of customers. There was no evidence that there was an established “corrective” policy of the restaurant that had been communicated to Cotton in regard to erroneous family discounts. Neither was there evidence that Cotton refused upon request to refund the money.
Under these circumstances, we cannot concur with the Commission’s determination that Cotton’s action (or failure to act) was so willful or negligent as to constitute “misconduct” as defined by section 443.-036(24), Florida Statutes (1983).
REVERSED.
UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bulkan v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Terry Ford Co., 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…checking out another customer, in violation of a rule of an employer, although it may have demonstrated inadvertence, ordinary negligence, or poor judgment did not constitute misconduct under the statute); Cotton v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 482 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (conduct of employee in failing to correct erroneous grant of ninety-eight (98) cent discount to employee’s husband contrary to restaurant policy, instead following another established policy by writing the additional money off a…
-
King v. Walgreen Co. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 635 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Benitez v. Girlfri-day, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Cotton v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 482 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Woskoff v. Desta Enters., 187 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Spauld-ing v. Florida Indus. Comm’n, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Accordingly, the order below is reversed with directions to afford the appellant the benefits c…