MAPSIE P. JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND JACK ECKERD CORPORATION, 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.
Johnson, a cashier at Eckerd Drug Company, was discharged for failing to ring up a sale and subsequently using profanity with her supervisor. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the unemployment appeals commission's denial of benefits, holding that a single negligent failure to ring up a sale cannot constitute misconduct, and the isolated profane outburst in a private meeting did not constitute disregard of employer standards.
Johnson's conduct did not constitute misconduct under Section 443.036(24). A single negligent failure to ring up a sale cannot support a misconduct finding, and her isolated use of profanity in a private office setting, which was neither a personal attack nor calculated to undermine the supervisor's authority, does not constitute disregard of employer standards.
[1] A single negligent failure to ring up a sale does not constitute misconduct disqualifying an employee from unemployment compensation benefits.
[2] An employee's post-incident inquiry to a supervisor, even if containing expletives, does not constitute misconduct disqualifying the employee from unemployment benefits w…
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“a single negligent failure to ring up a sale cannot support a finding that the employee was guilty of misconduct under Section 443.-036(24), Florida Statutes (1985), and thus render the employee ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits”
Establishes the controlling legal rule that one negligent failure to ring up a sale is insufficient for a misconduct finding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson, an Eckerd cashier, allegedly failed to ring up a $1.39 can of starch in a customer transaction. When confronted about the unregistered sale, …
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 Intentional And Substantial Disregard Of Employer'S Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
Although the ambiguous response of Mapsie P. Johnson, a cashier employed by Eckerd Drug Company — “I know she [the customer] didn’t pay for the starch, but it’s only $1.39. Look, I’ll pay for the can.” — to an accusation that Johnson had failed to ring up a sale is arguably susceptible to the construction that Johnson knowingly allowed the customer to unlawfully take goods from the store, the employer expressly eschewed the suggestion that it was accusing Johnson of such deliberate conduct and instead took the position that Johnson’s offense was simply the negligent failure to ring up the sale.1 This aspect of the case is thus controlled by the well-established rule of law that a single negligent failure to ring up a sale cannot support a finding that the employee was guilty of misconduct under Section 443.-036(24), Florida Statutes (1985),2 and thus render the employee ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Shacklett v. State, 460 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
The only remaining basis for disqualifying Johnson from unemployment compensation benefits is the appeals referee’s finding that Johnson’s post-incident inquiry to her supervisor — “Damn it, what the f.._ is this?” — and wonderment — “I cannot believe that I have worked here in this company for four years and this f.„ing thing is going on” — constituted a “disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of [its] employee” that would constitute misconduct under Section 443.036(24)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). This finding fares no better because, first, there is not the slightest indication that the conduct was part of a pattern of behavior, compare Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Florida Department of Commerce, 354 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d 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. 3d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the appeals referee’s decision that Johnson was properly discharged for misconduct and was thus ineligible for unemployment compensation is reversed.
Reversed.
. At the hearing before the Unemployment Compensation Appeals Referee, Eckerd’s representative stated:
"We are not terminating — we did not terminate Ms. Johnson for theft of merchandise. I said failure to properly ring up the sale, improper cash register procedures. Okay it was a combination in her case, improper cash register procedures and failure to ring up the merchandise. Okay, [we] never said she took the merchandise or someone stole the merchandise.”
. Section 443.036(24) reads:
"MISCONDUCT. — ‘Misconduct’ includes, but is not limited to, the following, which shall not be construed in pari materia with each other:
“(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 (16 total)
-
Reason Ford, Jr. v. Se. Atl. Corp. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 588 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ment, and, if so, for it to be determined whether the drug addiction is to be considered an illness. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings. SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur. . Johnson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 513 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (single negligent failure by clerk to ring up sale). . Davis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, ATI So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (clerk who got into fight with coworker after repeated harassment).…
-
Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…send her to any of my clients.” In its brief, the commission concedes that the name-calling in this case occurred “in the privacy of telephone conversations.” If the case were that simple, I would agree that Johnson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 513 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) controls and join the court. Here, the court recognizes the truth of the referee’s finding which is quoted above — but nonetheless ignores the legal effect. It seems plain to me that notwithstanding the name-calling occurring in p…1 / 2
-
Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…Diaz v. Winn-Dixie Store, Inc., 587 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); AT & T Communications, Inc. v. Johnson, 582 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Kan v. P.G. Cook Assoc., 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Johnson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 513 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Verner v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 474 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Davis v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 472 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Hines v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Selvin G. Hines v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 354 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Stahl v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 502 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Sharole S. Shacklett v. State, 460 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)