GEORGE RANDALL SABOLIA, 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.
The court held that the employee's willful refusal to follow valid work orders constituted misconduct disqualifying him from unemployment benefits.
[1] An employee's willful and intentional refusal to follow a superior's valid and reasonable work order constitutes misconduct disqualifying the employee from unemployment b…
[2] An employee's refusal to return a company vehicle upon direct order from a supervisor, after previously refusing direct work orders, supports a finding of misconduct.
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 intelligenceAn employee repeatedly refused his supervisor's direct orders, including refusing to make a customer call, come to the office, and return a company ve…
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
PER CURIAM.
George Sabolia, who was denied unemployment benefits after the appeals referee found that he had been discharged for misconduct connected with his work, seeks review of the Unemployment Appeals Commission order affirming the decision of the appeals referee. We affirm.
The relevant facts found by the appeals referee, all supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, can be stated succinctly. Mr. Sabolia, employed as a-service technician and while on duty and operating his employer’s service vehicle, was contacted by his supervisor via two-way radio and directed to make a follow-up call on a customer who had been serviced by another technician. Mr. Sabo-lia thrice intentionally refused to do so. The supervisor then directed Mr. Sabolia to come to the office to discuss the matter in person, but he refused that order as well, stating he would have to get his gun before going to the office. Finally, the supervisor directed Mr. Sabolia to return the service vehicle to the employer’s office at once, but he ignored that order and, instead, drove the vehicle to his home where he parked it. When the vehicle was not returned to the employer’s office, the supervisor went to Mr. Sabolia’s home, retrieved the employer’s vehicle and discharged Mr. Sabolia.
The appeals referee’s conclusion that Mr. Sabolia was discharged for misconduct because of his willful and intentional refusal to follow his superior’s valid and reasonable work order, and that he was thereby disqualified for unemployment benefits, is in accord with both statutory and case law on the matter. See §§ 443.036(26), 443.101(l)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (1997). See e.g., National Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 495 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Hines v. Department of Labor and Employment Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Davis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 425 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Citrus Cent. v. Detwiler, 368 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lucido v. State, 862 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…n employer’s valid and reasonable work order may constitute misconduct within the meaning of the statute. See Torres v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 2003 WL 22149150, 862 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA Sept.19, 2003); Sabolia v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 747 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). On the other hand, “mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment o…
-
Torres v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & S. Wine & Spirits of Am., Inc., 862 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…led to benefits because her conduct was willful and in direct contravention of the employer’s instructions, the instructions were not shown to be unreasonable, and the employee’s insubordination was repeated); Sabolia v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 747 So. 2d 452, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (stating that the willful and intentional refusal to follow the superior’s valid and reasonable work order was sufficient to warrant disqualification for benefits). On the other hand, a denial of benefits is not warranted i…
-
Leedham v. State of Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Vill. Beach Mkt., Inc., 950 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…oyer has the right to expect of his or her employee. See Gongaware, 882 So. 2d at 454 (providing that “[a]n employee’s refusal to perform an employer’s valid and reasonable work order amounts to misconduct.”); Sabolia v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 747 So. 2d 452, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (concluding that the willful and intentional refusal to follow the superi- or’s valid and reasonable work order was sufficient to warrant disqualification for benefits); Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Ap [*478] peals Comm’n, 665…
Authorities Cited
- Selvin G. Hines v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Nat'l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Janice A. Davis, 495 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- John v. Smith and Lucy L. Smith, 368 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Ubaldo Fernandez v. State, 425 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)