SUSAN GROSSMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
J.C. PENNEY COMPANY 2071 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.
Susan Grossman appeals the denial of unemployment benefits after her discharge from J.C. Penney for violating store policy by making purchases while on a paid break. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that a single act of poor judgment without prior warning does not constitute misconduct sufficient to disqualify an employee from unemployment benefits.
A single act of poor judgment that does not reflect substantial disregard of the employer's interests and for which the employee received no prior warning does not constitute misconduct sufficient to disqualify the employee from unemployment benefits. Misconduct involving company policy violations typically requires repeated violations after several warnings.
[1] Unemployment compensation laws are to be construed narrowly in favor of the claimant.
[2] A single act of poor judgment is generally insufficient to disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment benefits, especially when it does not reflect a substantial d…
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“In determining what constitutes 'misconduct,' courts are to construe the unemployment compensation laws narrowly in favor of the claimant.”
Establishes the foundational principle that unemployment compensation laws must be interpreted favorably to the claimant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrossman worked as a sales clerk for J.C. Penney for approximately two and one-half years. She was discharged for making store purchases while on a pa…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Susan Grossman, appeals a final order disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct connected with work. We reverse.
Grossman worked approximately two and one-half years as a sales clerk for appellee, J.C. Penney Company, prior to her discharge for making store purchases while on a paid break in violation of store policy. Gross-man’s denial of unemployment benefits was subsequently affirmed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission.
An employee may be denied benefits under Florida’s unemployment compensation laws where discharge is based upon employee misconduct connected with work. § 443.101(1), Fla.Stat. (1995). In determining what constitutes “misconduct,” courts are to construe the unemployment compensation laws narrowly in favor of the claimant. Hummer v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 573 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).
In accord with this philosophy, a single act of poor judgment is generally not sufficient to disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits especially where the act does not reflect a substantial disregard of the employer’s interests. See Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Bulkan 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 until she was discharged, this was her only violation of store policy, and the act itself does not reflect a substantial disregard of her employer’s interests. Although Grossman’s employer had good reason to fire her, nevertheless, these actions were not sufficiently egregious to support denial of unemployment compensation benefits. See Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 685 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA, 1996). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reinstatement of Grossman’s unemployment compensation benefits.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Gilbert v. Dep't OF Corr. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 696 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ustifying discharge is not “automatic[ally] ... disqualifying misconduct”). Although claimant’s actions may have justified discharge from employment, the record does not show that such conduct justified denial of benefits. Grossman[ v. J.C. Penney, 689 So. 2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ], slip op. at 3; Betancourt[ v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ] at 38; Cooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 670 So. 2d 178, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Livingston v. Tucker Constr. & Eng., Inc., 656 S…
-
Webb v. Rice, 693 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In keeping with those 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…
-
Baptiste v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 701 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ing whether misconduct has occurred which would disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment benefits, the statute should be liberally construed in favor of the claimant.” Betancourt, 672 So. 2d at 38; see also Grossman v. J.C. Penney Co. 2071, 689 So. 2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). “[T]he ‘fact that an employee is discharged for misconduct in the employer’s opinion does not necessarily demonstrate the existence of misconduct contemplated by [the statute].’ ” Scardino v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 60…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hummer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 573 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Edmond A. Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Fla. Sheriff's Youth Ranches, Inc., 685 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- 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)
- Vilma S. Fiedler v. Burdines, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Philip Morris, Inc. v. Broin, 672 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Amaury P. Betancourt, Jr. v. SUN Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)