WUINER CHERY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLAGSHIP AIRLINES, 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 was discharged for refusing to provide written statements about missing medical appointments related to a pending workers' compensation claim without first consulting his attorney. The court reversed the unemployment benefits disqualification, finding the employee's refusal to comply with the employer's directive was reasonable under the circumstances.
The employee is entitled to unemployment compensation because his refusal to produce the written statements without first consulting his workers' compensation attorney was reasonable, even though the employer's order to provide them may have been otherwise valid and reasonable.
[1] An employee's refusal to provide a written statement to an employer is not misconduct disqualifying them from unemployment benefits if the refusal is reasonable.
[2] An employee's pending workers' compensation claim, which is often adversarial, may make their refusal to provide a written statement without consulting their attorney rea…
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 order for a claimant to be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for refusing to follow his employer's order, the order must be valid.”
Establishes the foundational legal requirement that an employer's order must be valid before an employee can be disqualified for refusing it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChery was injured on the job and filed a workers' compensation claim. While the claim was pending, he missed two medical appointments arranged by the …
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.
The claimant, Wuiner Chery, appeals a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission [UAC] affirming his disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits. We reverse.
The claimant was injured on the job and filed a workers’ compensation claim. While the claim was pending, the claimant faded to attend an appointment with an orthopedic surgeon that was arranged by the workers’ compensation insurance company and an appointment at the employer’s medical facility. Thereafter, the claimant subsequently orally explained to his supervisor why he had missed those appointments. The claimant’s supervisor then requested that the claimant set forth his explanation in writing. The claimant explained that he wanted to speak with the attorney who was handling his pending workers’ compensation claim before providing any written statements. Later that day, the supervisor advised the claimant that there would be a meeting the following day at 10:00 a.m. in his office and that if the claimant did not furnish the written statements at that time, he would be discharged as a result of his insubordination. The claimant then explained that he would not attend the 10:00 a.m. meeting because he had an appointment with his attorney at 11:00 a.m. The supervisor then rescheduled the appointment to 8:00 a.m. The claimant once again stated that he wanted to speak with his attorney before producing the written explanation and that therefore, he would not attend the 8:00 a.m. meeting. The claimant was discharged when he failed to attend the 8:00 a.m. meeting or produce the written statements.
Subsequently, the claimant applied for unemployment benefits. The appeals referee found that the claimant had refused to provide the written statements and that the claimant’s “refusal to follow the directive of management demonstrates disregard of his duties and obligations to the employer which rises to the level of misconduct to disqualify him from the receipt of benefits.” The UAC affirmed.
In order for a claimant to be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for refusing to follow his employer’s order, the order must be valid. Rosmond v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 651 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Moreover, “the supervisor’s order must be reasonable in order for the employee to be held accountable for the refusal.... [Ajlthough the employer’s order may be reasonable, if the employee reasonably refuses to perform the required act, the employee is still eligible for unemployment compensation.” Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 664 So. 2d 1089, 1093 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
In the instant case, because the claimant’s workers’ compensation claim was still pending and such claims are often adversarial in nature, the claimant’s refusal to produce the written statements without first speaking with his attorney was reasonable. As such, the claimant is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. Accordingly, the order of the UAC is reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crosby v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 711 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…t be disqualified from receiving benefits based upon the employee’s refusal to comply with an employer’s order if the employer’s order was unreasonable or illegal. See Pascarelli, 664 So. 2d at 1093. See also Chery v. Flagship [*263] Airlines, Inc., 692 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(employer’s order for employee to give written statement before speaking with his attorney was unreasonable and therefore employee was entitled to recover benefits); Underhill v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 610 So. 2d 48, 49 (…
-
Castillo v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 785 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…tten statement about a work-related incident, as a matter of law, did not constitute disqualifying misconduct. See § 443.036(29), Fla. Stat. (2000); Baca v. Unique Originals, Inc., 724 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Chery v. Flagship Airlines, Inc., 692 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Underhill v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 610 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), review denied, 624 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, the decision below denying unemployment compensation benefits is reversed and the cause remanded wi…
-
Baca v. Unique Originals, Inc., 724 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…answer questions without his attorney present was insubordinate and constituted misconduct connected with work within the meaning of the law. This case is materially indistinguishable from this court’s decision in Chery v. Flagship Airlines, Inc., 692 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In Chery, we concluded that an employee’s refusal to produce a written statement concerning his pending worker’s compensation claim without consulting with his attorney was reasonable. On that basis, this court held that the clai…
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
- Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 664 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Rosmond v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & NSA Polymers, Inc., 651 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)