JUDITH A. NEMETH, APPELLANT,
v.
PALM GARDEN OF PORT ST. LUCIE 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.
Judith Nemeth appealed an unemployment compensation denial after leaving work early without her supervisor's permission following an emotional reaction to her performance evaluation. The court reversed, finding that the appeals referee's determination that her conduct constituted poor judgment rather than misconduct was supported by competent, substantial evidence.
The court reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of benefits, holding that competent, substantial evidence supported the appeals referee's finding that the employee's conduct constituted poor judgment in an isolated incident rather than misconduct, thereby entitling her to unemployment compensation benefits.
[1] An employee's refusal to sign a routine evaluation does not, in itself, constitute misconduct disqualifying them from unemployment benefits.
[2] An isolated incident of poor judgment by an employee, particularly one with a history of good attendance and punctuality, may not rise to the level of misconduct disquali…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“However, it may do so only where there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the referee's decision.”
Establishes the standard of review for whether the Unemployment Appeals Commission can reverse an appeals referee's decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNemeth worked as a dining room manager from May 1991 to June 1992. On June 23, 1992, after reviewing her evaluation and becoming upset, she decided 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Judith Nemeth brings this appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission that adopts the appeals referee’s factual findings, but rejects the referee’s conclusion that appellant is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse the order. Appellant worked for the employer from May 13, 1991, through June 23, 1992, as a dining room manager. On June 23,1992, her immediate supervisor, the dietary manager, reviewed a routine evaluation with appellant. Appellant, however, refused to sign her evaluation. As a result of appellant’s refusal to sign the evaluation, the dietary manager informed her that she-must meet with the administrator, who was the dietary manager’s immediate supervisor. During a subsequent meeting with both the dietary manager and the administrator, appellant signed the evaluation and received permission to leave the room so that she could write comments in response to same on the evaluation form. Upon reviewing her evaluation, however, appellant became very upset and began crying. She decided to leave work at 4:30 p.m., rather than her scheduled time of 6:30 p.m. Before she left, she informed the individual in charge of the kitchen that she was going to leave and asked that individual to relay the information to her immediate supervisor, the dietary manager. Appellant’s former employer evidently had a policy that prior to leaving, an employee must receive permission from their immediate supervisor, unless the immediate supervisor was not on company premises. In that event, the employee must obtain permission from the individual in charge of the kitchen at the time. The dietary manager was on company premises at the time that appellant left work. The appeals referee specifically found that appellant left work without permission from the required individual, but that such behavior did not rise to the level of misconduct. Rather, the act resulted from appellant’s poor judgment, exercised in an isolated incident, given appellant’s history of perfect attendance and punctuality. The appeals referee thus found appellant entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
Ordinarily, the Unemployment Appeals Commission does not have to defer to the appeals referee’s conclusions of law. The commission has the authority to reverse the referee’s decision. See Microfile v. unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 425 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, it may do so only where there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the referee’s decision. See Orange Bank v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 611 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Forkey v. Kirsch, P.A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We find competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the appeals referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. As a result, we reverse the order on appeal and remand with directions to the Unemployment Appeals Commission to reinstate the appeals referee’s order and award appellant unemployment compensation benefits.
HERSEY, POLEN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Barnett Bank OF Broward Cnty. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 650 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…d eases; Nelson, 611 So. 2d at 1331. Accord Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Nemeth v. Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie, 629 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So. 2d 984 (Fla.1994). “[M]ere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, ... inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed ‘miscon…
-
Brownstein v. Hartwell Enters., Inc., 647 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Johnson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 513 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), as is a single act of bad judgment. Nemeth v. Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie, 629 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1994); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., Inc., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). However, where, as here, the employee does not pe…
-
Orchid G. Galletti v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 652 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…peals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); LaRocca v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 643 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Nemeth v. Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie, 629 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So. 2d 984 (Fla.1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., Inc., 627 So. 2d 534, 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) and cited cases; Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 [*409] (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Benitez v. Girlfriday,…
Authorities Cited
- Forkey & Kirsch, P. A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Microfile, Inc. v. Williams, 425 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Orange Bank v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Janice S. Sloan, 611 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)