PAUL M. MARTINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
BREIT'S TOWER SERVICE, 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 Martinson appeals the denial of unemployment benefits after being fired for chronic tardiness. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed the referee's decision that his repeated late arrivals despite warnings constituted misconduct, and the court affirms.
Repeated tardiness despite warnings constitutes misconduct under Florida law, justifying denial of unemployment benefits. The Commission's affirmance of the referee's decision was proper because the findings were supported by substantial, competent evidence.
[1] A reviewing court must defer to an agency's interpretation of an operable statute if the interpretation is consistent with legislative intent and supported by substantial…
[2] An employee's unauthorized and repeated failure to arrive timely at work, despite warnings, may constitute misconduct justifying denial of unemployment benefits.
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“[A] reviewing court must defer to an agency's interpretation of an operable statute as long as that interpretation is consistent with legislative intent and is supported by substantial, competent evidence.”
Establishes the standard of review for agency decisions regarding unemployment benefits
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartinson worked as a vice-president and steeplejack at Breit's Tower Service, Inc. He was terminated for frequently arriving late to work despite pri…
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 Agency Interpretation Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mr. Martinson appeals an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the referee’s decision denying him benefits. We affirm.
Mr. Martinson worked at Breit’s Tower Service, Inc., as a vice-president and steeplejack. He was fired and applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The appeals referee denied him benefits, finding that he frequently arrived late for work despite prior warnings and concluding that such tardiness constituted misconduct. The Commission affirmed the decision, finding that the decision was in accord with the essential requirements of law.
“[A] reviewing court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of an operable statute as long as that interpretation is consistent with legislative intent and is supported by substantial, competent evidence.” Public Employees Relations Comm’n v. Dade County Police Benevolent Ass’n, 467 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla.1985); Dominguez v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 679 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
The referee’s findings of fact are supported by substantial, competent evidence.1 The record contains testimony that Mr. Martinson was tardy, that he received warnings for his tardiness, and that his late arrivals negatively affected the business’ operations. In addition, Mr. Martinson admitted that he was late for work on several occasions. An employee’s unauthorized and repeated failure to arrive timely at work despite warnings may constitute misconduct justifying denial of benefits. See Sanchez v. Department of Labor & Employment Sec., 411 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
See also Tallahassee Housing Auth. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 483 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1986); Sumlar v. Intermodal Servs., Inc., 429 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Therefore, the Commission properly affirmed the referee’s decision. See Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Accordingly, we affirm the Commission’s order.
Affirmed.
. Mr. Martinson’s alleged failure to receive timely the employees' individual statements was harmless, as the employees’ statements were merely cumulative to the employer's statement. See Murray v. Publix, 434 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. Load King Mfg. Co. & the Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 758 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2000)…ith tardiness, they both deal with attendance problems and are sufficiently analogous to be treated the same. In fact, excessive tardiness has been held to constitute misconduct under the statute. See, e.g., Martinson v. Breit’s Tower Service, Inc., 680 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Sumlar v. Intermodal Services, Inc., 429 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Sanchez v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 411 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). . In C.F. Industries, the employee was discharged for excessive ta…
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. The State of Fla. Dep't OF Env't Prot. & Sekoff Invs., Inc., 714 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…. “[A] reviewing court must defer to an agency’s interpretation of an operable statute as long as that interpretation is consistent with legislative intent and is supported by substantial, competent evidence.” Martinson v. Breit’s Tower Serv., Inc., 680 So. 2d 599, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Nelson v. Dade County Aviation Dept., 616 So. 2d 56, 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). In this ease, FDEP has the authority to interpret section 376.3078, which [*516] details eligibility for participation in the Cleanup Program. See P…
-
Azucena Velazquez v. State, 916 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…l design or shows an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his or her employer. Excessive tardiness falls within this definition. See Martinson v. Breit’s Tower Serv., Inc., 680 So. 2d 599, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Just as in Martinson, Velazquez repeatedly failed to report on [*1006] time, was given a warning, and then continued to be late. A similar result was reached in Sumlar v. Intermodal Services, Inc., 429 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st D…
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
- Mel Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n v. Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n, 467 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1985)
- Tallahassee Hous. Auth. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 483 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1986)
- Sanchez v. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 411 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Althea Jeannette Tyler v. City OF Tampa, 429 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Dominguez v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & the Wackenhut Corp., 679 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Murray v. Publix & Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 434 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)