PAUL W. BROWNSTEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
HARTWELL ENTERPRISES, 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.
Paul Brownstein appeals a denial of unemployment compensation benefits after his employer terminated him for failing to complete an assigned week-long business development task in Ecuador and failing to notify his employer of the change in plans. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the unemployment appeals commission's decision that Brownstein's conduct constituted disqualifying misconduct under Florida law.
The court held that where an employee fails to perform an agreed-upon assignment and makes no effort to communicate with the employer regarding a change in plans, the willful disregard of the employer's interest constitutes disqualifying misconduct under Florida law. Accordingly, the unemployment appeals commission's decision denying benefits was affirmed.
[1] An employee's failure to perform an agreed-upon work assignment and subsequent failure to communicate with the employer about a change in plans constitutes willful disreg…
[2] Mere unsatisfactory work performance, a single act of negligence, or a single act of bad judgment are generally insufficient to prove misconduct for the denial of unemplo…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“an individual shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits upon a discharge by the employer for misconduct connected with work”
Establishes the statutory basis for denying unemployment benefits based on misconduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrownstein was employed as a salesman for one and a half years. His employer granted him one week of personal time in Ecuador and requested he spend a…
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 Or Disregard Of Standards Of Behavior cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Paul Brownstein, appeals from a denial of unemployment compensation benefits. We affirm.
Brownstein was employed for one and a half years as a salesman. He requested time to conduct personal business in Quito, Ecuador. The employer granted him one week of personal time and then requested that he stay one additional week to visit prospective customers in three Ecuadorian cities, Quaya-quil, Cuenca and Manta.
When Brownstein returned from Ecuador, he told his employer that his personal business took longer than expected and he could only call on three prospective companies in Quito. However, during the week in which Brownstein was to be conducting company business, Brownstein neither called nor notified the employer concerning his change in plans.
The employer fired Brownstein for not making the agreed upon business leads. At the hearing, no evidence was presented of any prior incidents involving Brownstein. The appeals referee noted that an employer has the right to expect employees to perform duties as assigned, and found that Brown-stein was specifically instructed to test the market in three cities, yet chose to attend to personal business instead. Therefore, the referee held that Brownstein was discharged for misconduct connected with work. The Unemployment Appeals Commission upheld the referee’s decision, and Brownstein appeals.
Section 443.101(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), provides that an individual shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits upon a discharge by the employer for misconduct connected with work. Such misconduct includes: “(a) [cjonduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest 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) [cjarelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, of 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.” § 443.036(26), Fla. Stat. (1993).
In general, mere unsatisfactory work performance will not result in a denial of benefits. Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Spaulding v. Florida Indus. Comm’n, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). A single act of negligence is also insufficient to prove misconduct, Paul v. Jabil Circuit Co., 627 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Johnson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 513 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), as is a single act of bad judgment. Nemeth v. Palm Garden of Port St. Lucie, 629 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1994); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., Inc., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
However, where, as here, the employee does not perform an agreed-upon week- long assignment and makes no effort to communicate with the employer regarding a change in plans, the willful disregard of the employer’s interest constitutes disqualifying misconduct. See Dorisma v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 544 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); National Ins. Svcs., Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 495 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), Kraft, Inc. v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 478 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We, therefore, affirm the Commission’s ruling finding employee misconduct as a matter of law.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baber v. Fla. Keyes Child's. Shelter, Inc., 701 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…t Appeals Comm’n, 685 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Proffitt v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 658 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Brownstein v. Hartwell Enter., Inc., 647 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); McKenzie Tank Lines, Inc. v. Roman, 645 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).…
-
Cabrera v. Palmetto Ford Truck Sales Inc., 740 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…perform, a flaunting of employer authority or a repeated failure to heed an employer’s instructions such as that set forth in Rycraft, Bozzo v. Safelite Glass Corp., 654 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), Brownstein v. Hartwell Enterprises, Inc., 647 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), Rubido v. Brinks, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1298, 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) and cases cited therein. Rather, the facts here demonstrate, at most, the exercise of poor judgment, an inefficiency or sub-standard performance such as that…
-
Inclan v. The Travelers Ins. Co. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 656 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…[*512] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 443.036(26)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). See Brownstein v. Hartwell Enter., Inc., 647 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Dorisma v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 544 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Kraft, Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 478 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Mid-State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Nat'l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Janice A. Davis, 495 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Mapsie P. Johnson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Jack Eckerd Corp., 513 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Dian L. Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., Inc., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Kraft v. State, 478 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Paul v. Jabil Cir. Co. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 627 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Dorcius Dorisma v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 544 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)