STUART BROOKS, 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.
Stuart Brooks appealed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's affirmance of a denial of unemployment benefits following his termination from Westinghouse Electric. The court affirmed, holding that Brooks was properly disqualified from benefits because he was discharged for misconduct—specifically, altering his attendance records—rather than for any retaliatory reason.
Brooks was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits because the appeals referee's findings established that he was discharged for misconduct—specifically, altering his attendance records in violation of his duties and obligations to his employer—which disqualifies him under Florida law.
[1] An employee discharged for misconduct connected with their work is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.
[2] Misconduct includes conduct evincing a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests, such as a deliberate violation of expected standards of behavior.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Workers who are discharged for misconduct connected with their work are disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits under section 443.101(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1995).”
Establishes the governing legal standard for disqualification 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 intelligenceBrooks was terminated from his employment at Westinghouse Electric Corporation. He applied for unemployment compensation benefits, alleging he had bee…
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 Appellate Review Of Agency Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Stuart K. Brooks appeals the final order entered by the State of Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) affirming the appeals referee’s determination that Brooks was not entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. We affirm.
Following his termination from employment with Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Brooks filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits. In the application he alleged that he had been terminated in retaliation for making a claim that Westinghouse had violated his rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).1 Thereafter, a hearing was conducted by the appeals referee in which various Westinghouse employees, including Brooks, testified. Upon review of the testimony, the referee determined that there was no competent substantial evidence supporting Brook’s allegation that he was discharged in retaliation for making a claim under the ADA. Furthermore, the appeals referee found that Westinghouse had discharged Brooks for improperly altering his attendance records, and that, consequently, Brooks was not entitled to receive benefits because such conduct constituted “misconduct” connected with his work. Brooks appealed the referee’s decision to the UAC. The UAC affirmed the ruling. This appeal followed.
Workers who are discharged for misconduct connected with their work are disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits under section 443.101(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (1995). Misconduct is defined as follows:
MISCONDUCT. — “Misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, the following, which shall not be construed in pari materia with each other:
(a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee; or (b) Carelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. § 443.036(26), Fla. Stat. (1995).
Here, the appeals referee made specific findings of fact to support the conclusion that Brooks had been discharged for misconduct. In this regard, the referee determined that Brooks had altered his attendance records to show that he was at work when he had not been, and that Brooks knew or should have known that such conduct “was a violation of his duties and obligations” to Westinghouse. On appeal, the UAC affirmed this ruling. The UAC is bound by the findings of fact made by the appeals referee as long as competent substantial evidence is present in the record to support them. Odom v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 586 So. 2d 504 (Pla. 5th DCA 1991). Likewise, the UAC’s interpretation of the law cannot be overturned by this court unless it is clearly erroneous. Department of Ins. v. Southeast Volusia Hosp. Dist., 438 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1983), appeal dismissed sub nom. Southeast Volusia Hosp. Dist. v. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund, 466 U.S. 901, 104 S.Ct. 1673, 80 L.Ed.2d 149 (1984). Our review of the instant record reveals that substantial competent evidence exists to support the findings of fact set forth by the appeals referee and that the UAC properly interpreted the law. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101, et seq. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Earnest Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 730 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…n the first instance, the unemployment laws of this state, its decisions should carry considerable weight with the court. See Dominguez v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 679 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 695 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). I agree with the Commission that the record does not support a finding that Mr. Rager was the aggressor and I also agree with the conclusion of the Commission that the law does not compel an employer to either accept violent agg…
-
Annamaria Eulo v. Fla. Unemployment Appeal Comm'n & Entel Wolstein Weiss P'ship, 724 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…It further cannot rely on a theory not advanced by one party or anticipated by the other. See Berry, 711 So. 2d at 577. A legal conclusion of the UAC may therefore be overturned if it is clearly erroneous. See Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 695 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). In the instant case, the UAC relied on inferences it [*638] improperly drew from facts taken out of context. It also improperly relied on facts that were not established at the hearing before the appeals referee. The UAC’s order…
-
Sauerland v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 923 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…A 1996). In a case similar to the one at issue, the Fifth District affirmed the Commission’s order affirming the appeals referee’s ruling that the claimant engaged in misconduct connected with work. See Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals [*1242] Comm’n, 695 So. 2d 879, 881 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). There, the appeals referee determined that the claimant altered his attendance records to show that he was at work when he had not been and that he knew or should have known that such conduct was a violation of his duties a…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Koehler v. Engle, 466 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1984)
- Dep't OF Ins. v. Se. Volusia Hosp. Dist., 438 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1983)
- Se. Volusia Hosp. Dist. v. Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund, 466 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1984)
- Hillsdale Coll. v. Dep't of Educ., 466 U.S. 901 (U.S. 1984)
- Taylor v. State, 586 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)