TRACY ARAUJO, 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.
Tracy Araujo appealed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of unemployment benefits after her termination from the Delta Orlando Resort for failing a post-injury drug test. The court affirmed the denial, finding sufficient evidence of misconduct based on the employer's drug-free workplace policy, though it noted concerns about the lack of documentary evidence regarding the policy and the nexus between the drug test result and the workplace injury.
The court affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits, finding sufficient evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's finding of misconduct based on violation of the employer's stated policy. However, the court could not evaluate the merits of the nexus question because the employer's complete drug-free workplace policy was not part of the record.
[1] An employee's admission of a company policy, even without the policy being formally introduced into evidence, can be sufficient to support a finding of misconduct based o…
[2] An appellate court is bound to affirm a decision when the record lacks sufficient evidence to evaluate a critical legal question, such as the nexus between a drug test re…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If ever [she] was suspected, or had a job injury done at Delta and was found alcohol or any kind of drug in [her] system, that it would not be tolerated.”
The employer's stated drug-free workplace policy as admitted by the appellant during the hearing, providing the basis for the misconduct finding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAraujo had been employed as a supervisor in food and beverage at Delta Orlando Resort for approximately six years. After returning from a two-week vac…
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 Unemployment Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Appellant, Tracy Araujo, seeks review of the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission denying her unemployment benefits. Based on the record before us, we affirm.
Appellant was employed at the Delta Orlando Resort for approximately six years as a supervisor in the food and beverage department. The incident that resulted in her termination occurred on June 17, 1998. Prior to that day, appellant had been on vacation out of state for the preceding two weeks. She claims that at the commencement of her vacation she had been at a high school reunion, had too much to drink and had ingested THC.
On the first day at work after her return, she was injured. She claims that the accident occurred when a bottle of champagne on ice exploded, a piece of glass came flying across the bar and she “happened to be in its pathway.” She claims the accident was not caused by anything she had done and that she had mishandled nothing.
It is apparently company policy that anyone injured on the job is to be administered a drug test and if they fail the test, they are to be discharged. We say “apparently” because the employer’s “policy” is not a part of the record. Appellant contends that because she was the victim of a freak accident that had nothing to do with traces of cannabinoids ingested thirteen days earlier when she was away on vacation, that she could not be discharged for misconduct. The question whether there should be some “nexus” between the positive drug test and the on-the-job injury is not without interest and, depending on exactly what the employer’s drug policy provided, could have merit. Unfortunately, this evaluation cannot be made because the drug-free workplace policy is not part of the record. We have noticed recently a disturbing trend where applicants are denied unemployment benefits for “misconduct” based on violation of a company policy even though the policy is not in evidence. In this case, however, the appellant, who is pro se, admitted during the hearing that the employer’s policy was that: “If ever [she] was suspected, or had a job injury done at Delta and was found alcohol or any kind of drug in [her] system, that it would not be tolerated.” Thus, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the hearing officer’s finding of misconduct based on violation of the policy but there is not sufficient evidence of the policy or of the incident for us to evaluate the nexus question. Accordingly, we are bound to affirm.
AFFIRMED.
ANTOON, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.