PRINCIPE O. ZORRILLA, APPELLANT,
v.
L. LURIA AND SON, INC. 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.
Employee discharged for contumaciously refusing to wear a jacket despite repeated warnings was properly denied unemployment benefits because his deliberate violation of employer's reasonable instructions constituted misconduct under Florida law.
An employee's deliberate and repeated refusal to follow a supervisor's reasonable instruction to wear a jacket, despite repeated warnings and threat of discharge, constitutes misconduct disqualifying him from unemployment benefits.
[1] An employee's deliberate and repeated refusal to follow a reasonable employer instruction, despite multiple warnings and threat of discharge, constitutes misconduct under Fla. …
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 intelligenceZorrilla was employed as a sales person in a jewelry department and was fired after he contumaciously refused to wear a jacket on the job despite repe…
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 Deliberate Violation Of Employer Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant was employed as a sales person in the jewelry department of a retail store. He was fired because he contumaciously refused to follow his supervisor’s instruction that he wear a jacket on the job, even after he was repeatedly admonished to do so and was warned that he would be discharged if he did not. He now seeks review of a determination denying him unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that he was discharged for “misconduct.” § 443.036(26), Fla.Stat. (1993).
We affirm. In our view, Zorilla’s consistent refusal to abide by his employer’s appropriate instructions was properly found “in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer ha[d] the right to expect....” § 443.036(26)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993).
See Rubido v. Brinks, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (deliberate violation of company rules deemed misconduct); National Ins. Servs. Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 495 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (same).
The employee’s deliberate violation of the supervisor’s repeated warnings clearly distinguishes his ease from many recent others in which we have held that a first-time, usually trivial violation of a company policy was not misconduct. See Tanav v. DHL, 639 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and cases cited.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webb v. Rice, 693 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…o. 2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)); Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 846, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and cited cases. E.g., Bozzo v. Safelite Glass Corp., 654 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Zorrilla v. L. Luria & Son, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Although claimant’s actions may have justified discharge from employment, the record does not show that such conduct justified denial of benefits. Grossman, 689 So. 2d at 1208; Betancourt, 672 So. 2d at 38; Cooks v. Unemployment…
-
Moncaleano v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 883 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…consistent refusal to abide by his employers appropriate instructions was properly found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer had the right to expect ... ”’ Zorrilla v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 645 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), citing § 443.036(26), Fla. Stat. (1993). This court has held that failure to follow the requests and admonitions of immediate supervisors is a legitimate basis for discharge on the basis of misconduct. Bozzo v. Safelite Glass Cor…
-
Sterling v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Fid. Nat'l Mgmt., 929 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Zorrilla v. L. Luria & Son, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Clay County Sheriff’s Office v. Loos, 570 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Janice A. Davis, 495 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Rubido v. Brinks, 601 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Tanav v. DHL & The Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 639 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)