RICHARD H. CLIFFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
MILE MARKER 82 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misconduct For Unemployment Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant admits that he was not able to perform the assigned tasks in the time thought adequate by the employer. Principally, because he took too long to complete assigned tasks, he was given an unsatisfactory performance evaluation and discharged. The employer relies on that unsatisfactory job evaluation as evidence of misconduct. The appellant alleges that he was terminated because of his age.
An unsatisfactory performance without a showing of “willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest” or “[cjarelessness 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 the employee’s duties”, is not misconduct which will disqualify a discharged employee for unemployment benefits. § 443.-036(26), Fla.Stat. (1991). All that can be reasonably inferred from the evidence, as a matter of law, is that the appellant was physically unable or generally incompetent.
Reversed.
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)…an unsatisfactory work performance, without more, is insufficient as a matter of law to constitute misconduct under section 443.-036(26) and thus warrant the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Clifford v. Mile Marker 82 Ltd. Partnership, 623 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). See also Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“Misconduct serious enough to warrant an employee’s dismissal is not necessarily serious enough to warrant the forfeiture of compensation benefits.”).…
-
Hall v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Sunrise Cmty., Inc., 700 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…discount on wrinkled item were not in willful or wanton disregard of employer's interest and could not be characterized as carelessness or negligence of such recurrence as to meet the test of misconduct); Clifford v. Mile Marker 82 Ltd. Partnership, 623 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(holding that where claimant admitted that he was not able to perform the assigned tasks in the time employer deemed adequate, such admission could only give rise to the inference that he was physically unable to complete assigned…
-
Pereira v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 745 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ant’s unsatisfactory job performance did not disqualify her from receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. See, e.g., Cabrera v. Palmetto Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 740 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Clifford v. Mile Marker 82 Limited Partnership, 623 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). REVERSED AND REMANDED. ANTOON, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence