ALBERTA PHANCO, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND RESORT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., 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.
Phanco appeals the denial of unemployment benefits after her termination by Resort Management Services. The court reversed, finding that although the employer had grounds to fire her, the employee's conduct did not constitute "misconduct" under Florida law necessary to deny unemployment compensation.
The court held that Phanco's conduct did not constitute misconduct under the statute. The evidence showed she actually accepted and worked at the reassigned position for several days before termination, and her initial behavior upon learning of the demotion was not sufficiently egregious to constitute the statutory misconduct required to deny benefits.
[1] Denial of unemployment benefits requires a finding that the former employee was guilty of misconduct as defined by statute.
[2] Misconduct includes conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests or a substantial disregard of the employee's duties.
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“Even though an employee's actions may be sufficient to warrant termination, he or she may still be entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits because the conduct is not sufficiently egregious to constitute "misconduct" required by section 443.036(26).”
Establishes the key distinction that termination for cause does not automatically disqualify an employee from unemployment benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhanco was demoted from sales contracts back to her original position as office assistant. Upon learning of the demotion, she created a scene with her…
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 Intentional And Substantial Disregard Of Employer'S Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Phanco appeals from the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s denial of unemployment compensation after her former employer, Resort Management Services, fired her. The hearing officer found that Phanco was terminated because she refused to change job assignments from sales contracts back to her original position as office assistant, created a scene with her supervisor, and complained to the comptroller/accounting office about her demotion. We reverse.
Denial of unemployment benefits is only appropriate if the former employee has been guilty of misconduct. “Misconduct” is defined by section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993) as: •
‘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. Even though an employee’s actions may be sufficient to warrant termination, he or she may still be entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits because the conduct is not sufficiently egregious to constitute “misconduct” required by section 443.036(26). Pallas v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 578 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
We do not think the testimony and evidence in this case supports the hearing examiner’s finding that Phanco refused to accept and work at her reassigned duties. To the contrary, thé evidence establishes she accepted the assigned position and had been working at it a number of days before she was terminated. Further, we do not think Phanco’s behavior upon first learning of her demotion was so improper or egregious as to constitute “misconduct” required by the statute. See Paul v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 627 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Pallas; General Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Harris, 563 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
REVERSED.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Savage v. MacY'S E., Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…0 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and cases cited; Pion v. Miami Paper & Plastic, Inc., 698 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and cases cited; Phanco v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 639 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Cooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 670 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); cases collected at 15 Fla.Stat.Ann. 443.101 nn. 33-55, at 139-155, and at 24 (Supp.1998), has virtually contem-natiously continued to ignore its duty to f…
-
Costarell v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 916 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 2005)…0 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), and cases cited; Pion v. Miami Paper & Plastic, Inc., 698 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and cases cited; Phanco v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 639 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Cooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 670 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); cases collected at 15 Fla. Stat. Ann. 443.101 nn. 33-55, at 139-155, and at 24 (Supp.1998), has virtually contemnatiously continued to ignore its duty to…
-
Pion v. Miami Paper & Plastic, Inc., 698 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…“on September 4,1996, [he] refused to work with the owner’s wife.” Contrary to the conclusions below, this behavior did not amount to “misconduct” which disqualified him from unemployment compensation benefits. Phanco v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 639 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see Cooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 670 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Tanav v. DHL, 639 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Armstrong v. Unemployment Appeals Co…
Authorities Cited
- Paul v. Jabil Cir. Co. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 627 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Gen. Asphalt Co., Inc. v. Harris, 563 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Pallas v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 578 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)