MARGARET A. MILLER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Margaret Miller, a Winn-Dixie employee, purchased three party platters on her day off but was undercharged because only two price tags registered at the register. She was terminated for theft and denied unemployment benefits. The court affirmed the denial, holding that receiving merchandise without paying for it constitutes misconduct connected with work.
The court affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits, holding that Miller's receipt of merchandise without paying for it was misconduct in disregard of her employer's interests under Fla. Stat. § 443.036(26), and that the hearing referee's finding of willfulness was supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] Receiving merchandise without paying for it is considered an action in disregard of an employer's interests.
[2] Termination for misconduct connected with work, such as receiving merchandise without paying, justifies denial of unemployment benefits.
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“Receiving merchandise without paying for it is, 'in disregard of an employer's interests.' Section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1995). Such action justifies termination for misconduct connected with work so that unemployment benefits are not appropriate.”
Establishes the legal standard: unpaid merchandise constitutes misconduct justifying termination and denial of benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller, an employee of Winn-Dixie Stores, purchased three party platters on her day off. She removed the price tags and placed them on her finger in 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 Misconduct Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Margaret Miller was an employee of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. when, on her day off, she purchased three party platters from her employer. She removed the price tags from the platters (there is no claim that this was in itself improper) and put the tags on her finger. However, the tags were so placed on her finger that when they were “rung up” on the cash register, only two were counted mid Mrs. Miller was undercharged for the items. The employee who handed the platters to Mrs. Miller and who for some reason suspected that Mrs. Miller did not intend to pay for all of the items, followed her to the cash register and after Mrs. Miller left determined that she had in fact paid for only two of the items. She reported this to management and Mrs. Miller was terminated. Mrs. Miller applied for unemployment benefits but the hearing officer and the Unemployment Appeals Commission determined that she was terminated for cause. She appeals; we affirm.
Receiving merchandise without paying for it is, “in disregard of an employer’s interests.” Section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1995). Such action justifies termination for misconduct connected with work so that unemployment benefits are not appropriate. Mrs. Miller, although admitting that she did not pay for one of the platters, contends that she was unaware that she had not paid until confronted by management. The hearing referee found that:
The claimant’s own testimony shows that she took $80 in cash to the store to pay for her purchases. The claimant testified further that she gave the cashier a $50 bill and received change ... The claimant’s testimony revealed that the three large items she purchased totaled more than $50 and she knew that before she checked out at the cash register. (Emphasis added.)
The hearing referee thus concluded that Mrs. Miller’s action was willful. We believe that there is sufficient record support to sustain this finding. To justify overturning the decision of the referee (and in this ease, the Unemployment Appeals Commission), there must be a showing that the findings are not supported by any competent, substantial evidence. See Rosmond v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 651 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jeri R. Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 822 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see also Tedder v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 697 So. 2d 900, 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citing Georgia v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 647 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)); Miller v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 690 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (citing Rosmond v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 651 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)). . We want to make it clear that we do not condone the actions of Anderson in the instant case, and we certainly do not approve of the prac…
-
Kelly v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 823 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…D and REMANDED. THOMPSON, C.J., and PLEUS, J., concur. . Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 730 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Fanelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Miller v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 690 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Rosmond v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 651 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Orange Bank v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 611 So. 2d 107, 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) ("While the commission has the authority to reverse the findings and…
-
Benson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 927 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…by competent, substantial evidence. Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 822 So. 2d 563, 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Montgomery v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 817 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Miller v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 690 So. 2d 752, 753 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)). Section 443.101(1), Florida Statutes (2004), disqualifies individuals from unemployment benefits if they have voluntarily left their work without good cause. The question of whether a claimant left work voluntarily is a q…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rosmond v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & NSA Polymers, Inc., 651 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)