HUMBERTO R. BOZZO, APPELLANT,
v.
SAFELITE GLASS 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.
Humberto Bozzo appealed the denial of unemployment benefits after being discharged by Safelite Glass Corporation for misconduct. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission found he was properly discharged for willfully disobeying a supervisor's directive not to delegate computer duties, and the appellate court affirmed.
The court affirmed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's decision, finding that Bozzo's willful disobedience of a supervisor's reasonable directive constituted misconduct connected with work and that the decision was supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] Misconduct connected with work is defined as a willful or wanton act or course of conduct in violation of the worker’s duties and obligations to the employer.
[2] A discharge for failing to obey a supervisor's reasonable directive constitutes misconduct connected with work.
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“Misconduct connected with work is defined as a willful or wanton act or course of conduct in violation of the worker's duties and obligations to the employer.”
Establishes the legal standard for misconduct in unemployment benefits cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBozzo received multiple complaints for habitually leaving work early and delegating his duties to others. His supervisor specifically instructed him n…
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 Misconduct Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission denying claimant unemployment benefits. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission determined that the claimant was properly discharged for misconduct. We agree and affirm.
Misconduct connected with work is defined as a willful or wanton act or course of conduct in violation of the worker’s duties and obligations to the employer. Fort Myers Pump & Supply, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Labor & Employment Sec., 373 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); § 443.036(26), Fla.Stat. (1993).
Here, after numerous complaints that the claimant on a continuing basis left work early and delegated his duties to others, the claimant was discharged when he directly failed to obey his supervisor’s reasonable directive. See Dorisma v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 544 So .2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
The claimant’s supervisor had specifically told the claimant not to delegate computer duties to a subordinate installer trainee. In the week that followed, the claimant nonetheless ordered the installer trainee to man the computer, thus acting in direct contravention of his immediate supervisor’s admonishment. While the claimant testified as to the reasonableness of his actions, the appeals referee hearing the case found the testimony of the employer witness to be more credible. See Glover v. Sanford Child Care, 429 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
The Unemployment Appeals Commission adopted the appeals referee’s decision.
We find that decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. Ford v. Southeast Atl. Corp., 588 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Accordingly, we affirm the order under review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webb v. Rice, 693 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…1206, 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(quoting Fiedler v. Burdines, Inc., 654 So. 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, 6…
-
Moncaleano v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 883 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…a. 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 Corp., 654 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). See also Rubido v. Brinks, Inc., 601 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (deliberate violation of company rules deemed misconduct). In this case, the claimants actions were clearly more than an isolated incident of poor judgment. In f…
-
Cabrera v. Palmetto Ford Truck Sales Inc., 740 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…of benefits here. The evidence in this case does not demonstrate an open refusal to 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…
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
- Reason Ford, Jr. v. Se. Atl. Corp. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 588 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Glover v. Sanford Child Care, Inc., 429 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Fort Myers Pump & Supply, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 373 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Dorcius Dorisma v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 544 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)