WILLIAM M. SCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
CENTRAL FLORIDA TOWER CORPORATION 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.
William Scott appealed an unemployment benefits denial after being discharged from employment. The appeals commission found he was discharged for misconduct, but the appellate court reversed, finding the record lacked competent, substantial evidence to support the misconduct determination.
No. The court reversed the appeals commission's decision because accepting Scott's version of events (as the appeals referee did), there was no factual basis for finding that Scott failed to perform his job duties as instructed or that he engaged in misconduct. Any insubordination was provoked by the employer's conduct.
[1] An appellate court must affirm a determination of misconduct by the unemployment appeals referee if there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the…
[2] Insubordination and the refusal to comply with a legitimate work order constitute misconduct for unemployment benefit purposes.
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“If there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the referee's determination of misconduct, this court must affirm.”
Establishes the standard of review for misconduct determinations in unemployment cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott was discharged from his employment at Central Florida Tower Corporation. There was conflicting testimony at the referee hearing regarding the in…
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 Provocation Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
William M. Scott appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the decision of the appeals referee that Scott was discharged from his employment for misconduct. Because the record does not support this decision, we reverse.
The question of whether an employee has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work is a matter to be determined by the Division of Unemployment Compensation of the Department of Labor and Employment Security. § 443.101, Fla.Stat. (1993). This court lacks authority to interfere with the division’s decision when it is based upon an acceptable view of the evidence presented at the hearing. Perez v. State, Dep’t of Labor and Employment Sec. Appeals Comm’n, 377 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). If there is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the referee’s determination of misconduct, this court must affirm. Carlson v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 275 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
At the referee’s hearing, there was conflicting testimony regarding the incident that led to Scott’s discharge. The referee resolved conflicts in the testimony in favor of Scott. The appeals referee then found that Scott was discharged for not performing his job duties as instructed and for insubordination. Insubordination and the refusal to comply with a legitimate work order constitute misconduct. Fort Myers Pump and Supply, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Labor and Employment Sec. Din. of Employment Sec., 373 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Accepting Scott’s version of the incident, as the appeals referee did, there is no factual basis for the determination that Scott failed to perform his job duties as instructed. Scott testified that he complied with the employer’s work order. Further, any acts of insubordination were in response to the employer’s conduct. The Third District has recognized this as a “provocation defense.” Hines v. Dep’t of Labor and Employment Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The facts relied on by the appeals referee do not provide competent, substantial evidence to support the determination that Scott engaged in misconduct.
Therefore, we reverse the order denying Scott’s claim for unemployment benefits and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PARKER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lusby v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 697 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…If there. is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the referee’s determination of misconduct, this court must affirm. Carlson v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 275 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). Scott v. Central Florida Tower Corp., 646 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The majority has erred in relying upon Paul v. Jabil Circuit Co., 627 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In that ease the appeals referee’s order granted benefits, and the Commission reversed that decision. The district court…
-
Jennings v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Healthsouth of Fort Lauderdale, 689 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…CA 1996). The commission’s order is presumptively correct and should not be reversed where supported, as here, by substantial competent evidence. Kelle v. D.H. Holmes Co., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Scott v. Cent. Florida Tower Corp., 646 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We recognize that generally a single, isolated act of negligence does not constitute sufficient misconduct to justify depriving an employee of benefits. See Cooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n., 670 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 199…
-
Torres v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & S. Wine & Spirits of Am., Inc., 862 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ls Comm’n, 831 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Moreover, if the employee complies with the employer’s work order or if the acts of insubordination were provoked by the employer, benefits should not be denied. See Scott v. Cent. Fla. Tower Corp., 646 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). [*28] Here, the referee specifically found that Torres made the delivery as directed by his superior. While Torres may have been angry, the referee did not find that Torres was insubordinate. Additionally, the factual findin…
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
- Selvin G. Hines v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Perez v. State, 377 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Fort Myers Pump & Supply, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 373 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Sykes v. State, 275 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Carlson v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 275 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)