WAYNE J. ROBERTS, APPELLANT,
v.
B.G. DIEHL 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.
Wayne Roberts appealed his disqualification from unemployment benefits after being discharged for missing three consecutive days of work due to transportation problems. The court reversed, holding that while the absences may have justified discharge, they did not constitute 'misconduct' under Florida's Unemployment Compensation Law requiring willful or wanton disregard of employer interests.
Roberts' conduct did not constitute 'misconduct' as defined by the Unemployment Compensation Law. Although the absences may have justified discharge, they did not evidence the willful or wanton disregard of employer interests or wrongful intent required by statute to deny benefits.
[1] Misconduct, for the purposes of unemployment compensation, requires a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests, a deliberate violation of expected standards…
[2] The burden of proving misconduct rests with the employer in unemployment compensation cases.
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“although an employee's actions may justify discharge, the same conduct does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits”
Establishes the critical distinction that discharge and misconduct disqualification are separate inquiries
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoberts was employed as an aide at an assisted living facility from July 20, 1996, through January 17, 1997. He lived in New Port Richey and worked in…
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 Liberal Construction Of Unemployment Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Acting Chief Judge.
Wayne J. Roberts appeals the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the appeals referee’s decision that Roberts was discharged for misconduct connected with work and is, therefore, disqualified for benefits. We reverse because Roberts’ conduct did not constitute “misconduct” as defined by the Unemployment Compensation Law.
“Misconduct” is defined in section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1996), as:
(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 or her 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 obligation to his or her employer. The burden of proving misconduct is on the employer. See Nading v. Sanibel Packing Co., 658 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In determining whether misconduct has occurred which would disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits, the statute should be liberally construed in favor of the claimant. Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, 672 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
After a hearing, the appeals referee made the following findings of fact:
The claimant was employed as an aide at the assisted living facility, from July 20, 1996, through January 17, 1997. The claimant lived in New Port Richey, Florida, and the place of work was in South Pasadena County, Florida. The claimant had transportation problems and was unable to report to work on January 12, January 13, and January 14, 1997. Because the claimant had missed three days in a row, his employer informed him he was being terminated. His last day of employment was January 17, 1997.
Roberts’ absences did not evidence “willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests through ... deliberate violation of standards of behavior which the employer had a right to expect” or “wrongful intent or evil design or a substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations” as required by section 443.036(26), Fla. Stat. (1995). Therefore, even though the absences may justify Rob erts’ discharge, they do not rise to the level of “misconduct” serious enough to deny him unemployment compensation benefits. See Betancourt, 672 So. 2d at 38 (although an employee’s actions may justify discharge, the same conduct does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to award Roberts unemployment compensation benefits.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. Load King Mfg. Co. & the Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 758 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2000)…sonable to require an employer who seeks to deny a former employee unemployment compensation benefits to meet this burden. In defining misconduct, courts are required to liberally construe the statute in favor of the employee. See Roberts v. Diehl, 707 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Baptiste v. Waste Management, Inc., 701 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Gilbert v. Department of Corrections, 696 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Foote v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 659 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Additiona…
-
Jeri R. Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 822 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…dingly, we reverse the order rendered by the Commission and remand for entry of an order reinstating the Referee’s order. REVERSED and REMANDED.. PETERSON and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur. . See also § 443.031, Fla. Stat. (2001); Roberts v. Diehl, 707 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Crosby; Baptiste v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 701 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Gilbert v. Department of Corr., 696 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hummer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 573 So. 2d 135, 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). . Spin…
-
Abbas v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 732 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…was a note from that supervisor that stated the claimant’s husband was told the skill session was not mandatory. The burden of proving misconduct to prevent an employee from receiving unemployment benefits is on the employer. See Roberts v. Diehl, 707 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Here the order [*453] of the UAC was based on the appeals referee’s finding that, prior to the claimant’s failure to attend the skill session, she was informed that attendance was mandatory. The evidence, however, does not suppor…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- Nading v. Sanibel Packing Co., Inc., 658 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)