JEAN S. CASTILLO, APPELLANT,
v.
SALLY BEAUTY COMPANY, INC. AND 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of unemployment benefits to an employee discharged for having her hair treated on company premises during a lunch break, finding that the isolated incident did not constitute the level of misconduct required to disqualify benefits under Florida law.
The court held that the isolated incident of having hair treated on company premises and partially on company time does not evince the willful or substantial disregard of employer interests required to constitute misconduct under Florida Statutes Section 443.036(26), and therefore does not disqualify the employee from receiving unemployment benefits.
[1] A worker discharged for misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
[2] Misconduct, for purposes of unemployment benefits, includes conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests through deliberate violation of expe…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“workers who are discharged because of misconduct, are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits”
States the basic rule of Florida unemployment compensation law establishing the misconduct disqualification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJean Castillo was discharged by Sally Beauty Company for violating the company lunch break policy by having her hair treated on company premises and p…
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 Definition Of Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
[*270] PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from a denial of unemployment benefits, we reverse the order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits, based upon our conclusion that the finding of employee misconduct is not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Florida’s unemployment compensation law, Section 443.101(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that workers who are discharged because of misconduct, are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. “Misconduct” is defined in Section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993), as either:
(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. In the present case, the isolated incident complained of, was that the employee violated the company lunch break policy by having her hair treated on company premises and, partially, on company time. Such conduct does not evince that type of willful or substantial disregard of the employer’s interests which rises to the level of misconduct as defined in Section 443.036(26). See Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Company, 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Spaulding v. Florida Indus. Commission, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Inseul Fenelus v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 727 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” Navarrete v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 726 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). See, e.g., Baptiste v. Waste Management, Inc., 701 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., Inc., 637 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We are constrained to reiterate the oft-stated maxim that misconduct serious enough to justify dismissal is not ipso facto tantamount to misconduct warranting forfeiture of benefits. See Navarrete, 726 So. 2d at 833; and cited ca…
-
Bigler v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Bath & Body Works, Inc., 841 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…a matter of law, amount to disqualifying misconduct. See Castillo v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 785 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Savage v. Macy’s East, Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208, 1208-09 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., 637 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); King v. Walgreen Co., 635 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order and remand with instructions that th…
-
Tanav v. DHL & The Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 639 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…o not amount to “misconduct” under section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993). Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); King v. Walgreen Co., 635 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., 637 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 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. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- 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)