DANIEL J. KING, APPELLANT,
v.
WALGREEN COMPANY 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.
Walgreen's cashier King was wrongfully denied unemployment benefits for applying a competitor's coupon to a customer purchase without prior warning, as this conduct did not constitute disqualifying misconduct under Florida law.
Applying a competitor's coupon to a customer purchase without prior warning or employer loss does not constitute disqualifying misconduct under Florida unemployment law.
[1] An employee's isolated application of a competitor's coupon to a customer purchase, causing no employer loss and preceded by no warning, does not constitute disqualifying…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing, a Walgreen's cashier of several years, applied coupons issued by one cigarette company to customers' purchases of another brand on two occasions…
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 Unemployment Benefits Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
King, a Walgreen’s cashier of several years standing, was summarily discharged and then, in this proceeding, deprived of unemployment compensation benefits because, on two occasions (in the interest of “customer relations”), he had applied a coupon issued for a refund by one cigarette company to a customer’s purchase of another brand. Contrary to the conclusion reached below, we find that these actions — from which King did not benefit and his employer Walgreen did not suffer, and which had been the occasion of no previous warning or reprimand — as a matter of law did not amount to disqualifying “misconduct.” § 443.036(26), Fla.Stat. (1991); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., — So. 2d-(Fla. 3d DCA Case no. 93-2512, opinion filed, April 19,1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Benitez v. Girlfri-day, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Cotton v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 482 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Woskoff v. Desta Enters., 187 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Spauld-ing v. Florida Indus. Comm’n, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Accordingly, the order below is reversed with directions to afford the appellant the benefits claimed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Dian L. Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., Inc., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Woskoff v. Desta Enters., Inc., 187 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Cotton v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Poppa Jay's, Inc., 482 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)