GAIL STAHL, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
Gail Stahl appealed a decision disqualifying her from unemployment benefits after being terminated for misconduct. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed the Appeals Referee's finding that Stahl's insubordination and public display of obscenities toward her superior constituted disqualifying misconduct under Florida's Unemployment Compensation Law.
The court affirmed the Commission's order, holding that Stahl's conduct—insubordination and shouting obscenities at her superior in the presence of other employees and customers—constituted misconduct that disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law.
[1] Workers discharged for misconduct connected with their work are disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.
[2] Misconduct includes conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests, such as a deliberate violation of standards of behavior the employer has a…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee”
Statutory definition of misconduct under Florida Statutes section 443.036(24)(a) that applies to Stahl's conduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStahl was terminated from employment for insubordination and creating a disturbance at her employer's premises. Specifically, she shouted obscenities …
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 Deliberate Violation Of Employer Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant/claimant appealed to the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, challenging the findings of the Appeals Referee regarding the incident that led to the termination of her employment. The Referee found that appellant was disqualified from receiving benefits due to her misconduct during her employment, to-wit: she was insubordinate to her superior and created a disturbance at the employer’s premises by shouting obscenities at her superior while other employees and customers were in the area. The issue before the Commission was whether appellant’s behavior constituted misconduct within the meaning of sections 443.036(24)1 and 443.-101 (Disqualification for Benefits), Florida Statutes (1985).
Upon review by the Commission, the decision of the Referee was found to be in accord with the essential requirements of law, and was affirmed. This appeal was taken from the Commission’s order.
We affirm the order under review upon a holding that the underlying findings of the Referee, which are supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, established misconduct which disqualified appellant for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law. See Heifetz v. Dep’t of Business Regulation, 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (agency may not reject hearing officer’s finding unless there is no competent, substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred); Hines v. Dep’t of Labor & Employment Security, 455 So. 2d 1104, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (district court must affirm where competent, substantial evidence supports appeals referee’s decision that employee’s actions — insubordinate and offensive challenge of foreman’s authority in presence of other employees— constituted misconduct); Citrus Central v. Detwiler, 368 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (reversing agency order overturning appeals referee’s finding of employee misconduct, which finding was supported by adequate evidence); Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 354 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (quashing agency’s order reversing appeals referee’s finding of employee misconduct where record established substantial, competent evidence of repeated behavior by employee evincing in tentional and substantial disregard of employer’s interests).
Affirmed.
. 443.036(24) MISCONDUCT. — "Misconduct" includes, but is not limited to, the following
(a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests 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 or 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 interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…, Florida Statutes. In the following cases, single acts of insubordination have been held sufficient to constitute misconduct. Dorisma v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 544 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Stahl v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 502 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); National Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 495 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Craft, Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 478 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Citrus Central v. Detwiler, 368 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA…
-
Mapsie P. Johnson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Jack Eckerd Corp., 513 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…d DCA 1978); second, the conversation between Johnson and her supervisor took place at Johnson’s request in a private office and did not occur in the presence of other employees or customers, compare Stahl v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 502 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); and, third, the language used, considered in context, was neither a personal attack upon the supervisor nor calculated to undermine his authority, compare Hines v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla…
-
Suluki v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 644 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…fying appointment slips and there was no provocation for Suluki’s behavior. Her behavior could only serve to undermine the orderly respect due the company president. This case is factually similar to Stahl [*554] v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 502 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In Stahl, a claimant who had been discharged for shouting obscenities to her supervisor was denied unemployment compensation benefits. A referee’s determination of misconduct must be affirmed if supported by competent substantia…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mel Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Selvin G. Hines v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 354 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- John v. Smith and Lucy L. Smith, 368 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)