MICHELLE P. HOWDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
PRONET, 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.
An employee challenged the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of unemployment benefits after she allowed her boyfriend to accompany her on a company-sponsored trip despite the employer's explicit denial of her request. The court reversed, finding the employee's conduct did not constitute misconduct under Florida law because the employer suffered no harm and the statute should be liberally construed in favor of claimants.
The claimant's conduct did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of the statute. The employer failed to show that the boyfriend participated in or interfered with the claimant's work activities or that the employer incurred any expenses on his behalf.
[1] The employer bears the burden of proving misconduct to disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment benefits.
[2] Statutes governing unemployment compensation benefits should be liberally construed in favor of the claimant.
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“The burden is on an employer to show misconduct.”
Establishes the legal standard that the employer must affirmatively prove misconduct to disqualify a claimant from unemployment benefits.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe employer selected the claimant for a company-sponsored trip for employees with significant contributions. The company policy had been updated in 1…
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.
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Claimant challenges the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (U.A.C.) reversing the findings of the appeals referee and denying her unemployment compensation benefits. We agree that the U.A.C. erred in concluding that claimant committed misconduct within the meaning of section 448.036(26), Florida Statutes (1995), and reverse.
Claimant was selected to participate in a company-sponsored trip for employees who had made significant contributions to the employer’s customers. In the past, the company policy specified that the trip was only for employees. In 1995, however, the company allowed spouses to accompany employees on the trip. Since the trip required air travel, claimant requested that her boyMend be allowed to accompany her on the trip, which the employer denied. Although she did not express it to the employer, claimant had been experiencing panic attacks related to flying and wanted her Mend to go with her for support. Despite the employer’s denial of her request, claimant allowed her boyMend to travel at his expense with her on the commercial flight. Based upon these facts, the appeals referee found claimant qualified for benefits. The U.A.C. disagreed and reversed.
The burden is on an employer to show misconduct. See Nading v. Sanibel Packing Co., Inc., 658 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Paul v. Jabil Circuit Co., 627 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In determining whether misconduct has occurred which would disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment benefits, the statute should be liberally construed in favor of the claimant. See Gulf County School Bd. v. Washington, 567 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1990); Livingston v. Tucker Constr. & Eng’g, Inc., 656 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Hummer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 573 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the U.A.C. that claimant’s conduct was in willful or wanton disregard of her employer’s interests and therefore constituted misconduct connected with her work within the meaning of the statute. The employer presented no evidence to indicate that claimant’s boyMend participated in or interfered with claimant’s participation in the company’s group activities. Neither was the employer required to expend any funds on his behalf. Accordingly, the decision of the U.A.C. is reversed and this case is remanded with directions to reinstate the order of the appeals referee.
LAZZARA and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Sunrise Cmty., Inc., 700 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…was not aware that such action caused her employer any concern until she was discharged, and the act did not reflect a substantial disregard of her employer's interests such as to preclude unemployment compensation benefits); Howden v. Pronet, Inc., 688 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(holding that employer failed to show that claimant's taking her boyfriend on company-sponsored trip despite employer’s denial of her request to take him was willful or wanton disregard of her employer’s interests constituting misc…
-
Easton v. State of Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Turnberry Country Club, 693 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…See Cooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 670 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Grossman v. J.C. Penney Co., 689 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Howden v. Pronet, Inc., 688 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). We reverse the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission and remand for an award of unemployment compensation benefits to Easton. GLICKSTEIN, FARMER a…
Authorities Cited
- Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Mid-State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Gulf Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Washington, 567 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1990)
- Hummer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 573 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Livingston v. Tucker Constr. & Eng'g, Inc., 656 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Paul v. Jabil Cir. Co. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 627 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Nading v. Sanibel Packing Co., Inc., 658 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)