STEPHEN C. KIRKLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, ET AL., APPELLEE
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.
Kirkland challenged the denial of unemployment benefits after his discharge for refusing a random drug test while off the clock. The court held that because Kirkland was off the clock when the employer requested the drug test, the refusal was not willful or wanton misconduct, and thus did not justify denying benefits.
The court held that Kirkland's refusal did not constitute willful and wanton misconduct because he was off the clock when the request was made, creating ambiguity about whether he was required to comply, and thus reversing the Commission's denial of benefits.
[1] An employee's refusal to submit to a random drug test may constitute misconduct disqualifying the employee from unemployment benefits.
[2] An employer's request for an employee to submit to a random drug test is unreasonable if the employee is off the clock at the time of the request.
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“his actions represented "misconduct connected with work."”
The appeals referee's conclusion that Kirkland's failure to comply with the supervisor's directive constituted misconduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 6, 1995, Kirkland clocked out but was asked by his supervisor to perform work on a door. After completing this task, he was instructed to go …
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 For Unemployment Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The issue on this appeal, from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission, is whether Stephen Kirkland’s refusal to take a random drug test was sufficient to constitute misconduct and, thus, serve as a basis for the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.
The facts are generally not in dispute. According to Kirkland, he clocked out on March 6, 1995, but was asked to do some work on a door, which he did. About this time, his supervisor told him to go to the nurse’s station for a drug test. Kirkland complained he was ill and since he had already clocked out went home. When he reported the next day he was tested. He had previously taken approximately five drug tests for the company. On March 10, 1995, he was discharged. The reason for discharge was listed as noncompliance with company policy.
The claims adjuster determined that Kirkland was eligible for benefits and an appeal was filed by the employer in front of an appeals referee. At the hearing, the human relations manager for the employer testified that Kirkland was aware of the written random drug screening policy because he signed an acknowledgment to that effect and it was listed in the handbook which Kirkland had received. The appeals referee concluded that Kirkland had failed to comply with a “reasonable work order” since he had no discretion to refuse to go to the drug test; thus, his actions represented “misconduct connected with work.” The factual findings of the appeals referee clearly indicated that Kirkland was off the clock when told to report for the random drug test. The decision was appealed to the Unemployment Appeals Commission and affirmed on December 5, 1995. The Commission reiterated that Kirkland’s failure to follow the supervisor’s directive constituted misconduct connected with work. Kirkland appeals, maintaining that since he was off the clock, the employer’s request was an “unreasonable demand.”
The instant record shows that Kirkland had consented to a drug test on five different occasions and had signed a consent for drug testing when the policy was implemented in 1993 and again in 1994 when the new handbook came out. It would appear that the employer did in fact have a reasonable expectation that Kirkland would take a drug test. But the record also shows, without dispute, that Kirkland was indeed off the clock when the request was made. Thus, it was not unreasonable for him to assume he did not have to comply at that time. This certainly creates enough ambiguity to eliminate the “willful” and “wanton” aspects of Kirkland’s alleged misconduct. Accordingly, the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission is reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the initial determination mailed July 3, 1995.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
W. SHARP, and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Richardson v. State, 918 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…in the Second Judicial Circuit for a writ of habeas corpus, since he is incarcerated in the Quincy Correctional Institution. Only the circuit court within the county where he is incarcerated has jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted); Gaffney v. State, 681 So. 2d 1211, 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ("[T]he trial court lacked the authority to rule upon the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus because the defendant is detained outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The petition should have been dismisse…
-
Torres v. State, 700 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…circuit court within the county where he is incarcerated has jurisdiction. § 79.09, Fla. Stat. (1995); Alachua Regional Juvenile Detention Center v. T.O., 684 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1996); Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1969); Gaffney v. State, 681 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). We dismiss the appeal without prejudice to Torres’ filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Second Judicial Circuit. DISMISSED without prejudice. COBB and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
-
Gaffney v. State, 878 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. . See Gaffney v. State, 527 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Gaffney v. State, No. 88-418 (Fla. 5th DCA Apr.4, 1989); Gaffney v. State, No. 90-1264 (Fla. 5th DCA Sept. 5, 1990); Gaffney v. State, 681 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Gaffney v. State, No. 97-1370 (Fla. 5th DCA June 11, 1997); Gaffney v. Brooks, 712 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Gaffney v. State, 722 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Gaffney v. State, 775 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Gaf…