GENERAL ASPHALT COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
EDGAR HARRIS AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
General Asphalt Company appeals an unemployment benefits decision, arguing that an employee was disqualified for misconduct when discharged after attacking a coworker with a shovel. The Florida appellate court affirms the unemployment commission's reversal of the disqualification, holding that despite the employee's aggressive response, the lack of employer intervention in ongoing workplace harassment negated a finding of misconduct.
The court held that the employee's actions did not constitute misconduct connected with work because although the employee acted irresponsibly, his actions were not without provocation, and the employer had the opportunity but failed to intercede before the situation escalated.
[1] An employee's physical altercation with a co-worker, even if provoked, may not constitute misconduct disqualifying the employee from unemployment benefits if the employer…
[2] An employee's actions do not constitute misconduct connected with work when the employer had the opportunity to intercede and prevent escalation but failed to act.
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 claimant acted irresponsibly, but his actions were not without provocation. Moreover, the employer had the opportunity to intercede between the claimant's tormentors and the claimant before the situation escalated to such a level; however, the employer did not act.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that provocation and employer inaction are critical factors negating misconduct
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee of General Asphalt Company worked as a laborer beginning in March 1983. On January 11, 1989, a coworker began throwing hot asphalt pebbles…
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 Provocation cases and more on FLexlaw
GODERICH, Judge.
The employer, General Asphalt Company, Inc., appeals an order of the unemployment appeals commission reversing the appeals referee’s conclusion that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he was discharged from employment for misconduct connected with his work1 as provided in Section 443.101(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989).2 We affirm.
The appeals referee made the following findings of fact:
The claimant became employed by a paving subcontractor, as a laborer, in March, 1983. In the ensuing years of his employment, the claimant complained on several occasions to the vice-president in regards to other employees playing around and bothering him when he was at work. On January 11, 1989, an employee began to tease the claimant by throwing hot asphalt pebbles to the claimant. The claimant told the employee to stop, but when the employee continued the claimant took a shovel, attacked the employee with it and hit the employee causing physical injury. The employee had put his hands up when the claimant swung the shovel and he was cut about the hands requiring medical attention. The vice-president investigated the incident and discharged the claimant effective January 13, 1989.
Based on the above stated facts, as found by the appeals referee, it is clear that the claimant was discharged after he became involved in an altercation with a co-worker on the employer’s premises. The claimant acted irresponsibly, but his actions were not without provocation. Moreover, the employer had the opportunity to intercede between the claimant’s tormentors and the claimant before the situation escalated to such a level; however, the employer did not act. Under these circumstances, the claimant’s actions did not constitute misconduct connected with work. See Lovett v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 547 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Anderson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 517 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Davis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 472 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
The appeals commission’s order is hereby affirmed.
. Section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1989), provides as follows:
“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. § 443.036(26), Fla.Stat. (1989).
. Section 443.101(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), disqualifies workers who are discharged because of their misconduct from receiving benefits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earnest Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 730 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…Garguilo v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 642 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (reversing denial of benefits where co-worker was the aggressor, claimant was several-year employee, and incident was isolated); General Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Harris, 563 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (affirming award of benefits where employee “acted irresponsibly” but “not without provocation”); Anderson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 517 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (finding appellant’s retaliatory strike “a natura…
-
Pallas v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 578 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…As has been consistently held, the actions of an employee may justify his termination, yet may not rise to the level of misconduct which would preclude him from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. General Asphalt Company, Inc. v. Harris, 563 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Armstrong v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 427 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). While the misconduct of appellant warrants her termination, it did not constitute “willful and wanton disregard of [the] employer’s interests” so a…
-
Panama City Hous. Auth. v. Sowby, 587 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ct “does not necessarily demonstrate the existence of misconduct contemplated by section 443.036(24).” English, 534 So. 2d at 729. See also Pallas v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 578 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); General Asphalt Company, Inc., 563 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The second issue concerns the Commission’s refusal to accept into evidence the notice to Mrs. Sowby that limited sanctions were being imposed due to her involvement in obtaining rental assistance for her mother. Pursuant to Flor…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 472 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Lovett v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Tarmac Fla., Inc., 547 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Anderson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 517 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)