VILMA S. FIEDLER, APPELLANT,
v.
BURDINES, 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.
Vilma Fiedler was discharged for giving unauthorized discounts to customers without management approval. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission reversed the appeals referee's decision and denied benefits. The District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a single day's discounting actions by an employee unaware of explicit policies and without warning did not constitute misconduct under Florida law.
Fiedler's actions did not constitute misconduct because they involved a single day of discounting (not repeated violations), no explicit prior warning, no open refusal to perform work, and no flaunting of authority. The undisclosed unwritten policy was insufficient to support misconduct findings under the statute.
[1] Misconduct, for the purposes of unemployment compensation, generally involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings.
[2] A single negligent failure to process a sale does not, by itself, constitute misconduct for unemployment compensation purposes.
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 usually involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings.”
Establishes the legal standard that single incidents without prior warnings do not ordinarily constitute misconduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFiedler worked as a sales associate for Burdines from October 1978 until July 15, 1993. On July 14, 1993, she gave a 25% discount on a previously-on-s…
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 Culpability, Wrongful Intent, Or Evil Design cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The appellant, Vilma S. Fiedler, challenges an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC), which reversed the decision of the appeals referee and denied her unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.
Fiedler worked as a sales associate from October 1978 until July 15, 1993. On July 14, 1993, Fiedler gave a customer a 25% discount on an item that had been on sale the previous weekend, but was no longer on sale. She did this without seeking management approval. On the same day, she gave another customer a 10% discount on an item that was very wrinkled. This was also done without management approval. The next day, Fiedler was discharged for discounting the two items of merchandise.
The appeals referee found that Fiedler was under the assumption that she could give a discount ten days before and ten days after a sale and that she could give a 10% discount on an item that needed repair. Fiedler was never given instructions to the contrary by the employer. Previously, when Fiedler would discuss the matter with a supervisor, she was always told to please the customer. The referee also noted, however, that the employer had an unwritten policy which required the authorization of management before giving such discounts.
The appeals referee ruled that the employer did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Fiedler was guilty of misconduct connected with work pursuant to section 443.101(1), Florida Statutes. The UAC reversed the referee’s ruling.
We conclude that there was substantial, competent evidence presented at the hearing to support the appeals referee’s decision.
“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. § 443.036(26), Fla.Stat. (1993). Misconduct usually involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings. Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In Johnson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 513 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), the court held that “a single negligent failure to ring up a sale cannot support a finding that the employee was guilty of misconduct.” 513 So. 2d at 1099. The two discounts for which Fiedler was discharged occurred on the same day. In addition, she was not warned after the first transaction that she was to consult with management before discounting merchandise. We con-elude that Fiedler’s actions in giving the discounts was not in willful or wanton disregard of her employer’s interest as defined in section 443.036(26).
In Smith v. Krugman-Kadi, 547 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 558 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1990), the claimant failed to follow office policy by disclosing a confidential memorandum, by adjusting a time card to account for lunch, and by helping to determine the overtime hours of another employee. The Smith court found that the actions were not misconduct as a matter of law. In Smith, the court reasoned that the conduct did not involve an open refusal to perform, a flaunting of authority, or a repeated failure to follow an employer’s instructions, which may usually be found in cases involving misconduct. Similarly, Fiedler is not alleged to have committed any of these acts. The appeals referee found that Fiedler gave the discounts in order to please the customers and make the sales. We find that Fiedler’s actions cannot be characterized as careless or negligent and of such a recurrence as to demonstrate culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design as required by section 443.036(26).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to approve Fiedler’s application for unemployment compensation, if she otherwise qualifies.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Grossman v. J.C. Penney Co. 2071 & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 689 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Furthermore, where company policies are concerned, “misconduct usually involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings.” Fiedler v. Burdines, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d at 846. Here, even though Grossman violated company policy by making store purchases on her break, she was not aware that such action caused her employer any concern unt…
-
Edmond A. Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Fla. Sheriff's Youth Ranches, Inc., 685 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…rge. Thus, his behavior, even if deliberate, constituted bad judgment rather than willful disregard of the employer’s interest. “Misconduct usually involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings.” Fiedler v. Burdines, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). This holding is in keeping with the explicit philosophy behind the unemployment compensation law, which is remedial and must be construed narrowly…
-
Webb v. Rice, 693 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…se principles, “misconduct [concerning company policies] usually involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings.” Grossman v. J.C. Penney Co. 2071, 689 So. 2d 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…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Eilon Krugman-Kadi & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 547 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Mapsie P. Johnson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Jack Eckerd Corp., 513 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Ellington v. State, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Bulkan v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Terry Ford Co., 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)