FINISH LINE FEED, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CEDRICK A. ACOSTA 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 employer appealed an unemployment compensation decision denying benefits after discharging an employee for a single no-call, no-show incident. The court affirmed the appeals commission's determination that one instance of policy violation does not constitute disqualifying misconduct under Florida unemployment law.
A single act of policy violation does not constitute disqualifying misconduct when there is no showing that the employee acted in deliberate and intentional disobedience of a supervisor's order. Although proof of a single act can be sufficient to establish misconduct, the proof of this claimant's violation did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct connected with work.
[1] A single act of an employee's absence from work without notification may not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct connected with work for unemployment compensati…
[2] Proof of a single act can be sufficient to meet an employer's burden of proving employee misconduct connected with work.
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“one incident of no call, no show does not rise to the level of miscon[duct] as defined in the unemployment compensation law”
The appeals referee's core finding that single violations may not constitute disqualifying misconduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFinish Line Feed discharged employee Cedrick Acosta for failing to report for work as scheduled and failing to notify the employer of his absence, con…
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.
In this unemployment compensation case the claimant was discharged because, contrary to the employer’s Employment Manual, he neither reported for work as scheduled nor notified the employer that he would be absent. The appeals referee concluded that “one incident of no call, no show does not rise to the level of miscon duct as defined in the unemployment compensation law.” The appeals referee’s order was affirmed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission and the employer seeks review here. We affirm.
The employer contends that the appeals referee erred in determining that proof of a single act cannot meet an employer’s burden of proving employee misconduct connected with work. Although proof of a single act can be sufficient to meet an employer’s burden of proof in that respect, see Ford v. Southeast Atlantic Corp., 588 So. 2d 1089, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), it does not have to be. In any event, our reading of the appeals referee’s order satisfies us that it did not make the determination contended by the employer, i.e., that proof of a single act can never be sufficient to meet an employer’s burden of proving an employee’s misconduct connected with work.
What the appeals referee did determine, which the employer also contends was error, is that the proof of the claimant’s violation of the employer’s known policy did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct connected with work. The employer cites Thurber v. Hillier & Wanless, P.A., 642 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Vaughan v. Shop & Go, Inc., 526 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Rosa v. Jefferson’s Stores, Inc., 421 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Citrus Central v. Detwiler, 368 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); and Clay County Sheriff’s Office v. Loos, 570 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) as cases in which a single act of misconduct was found as disqualifying. A common thread running through all of the cited cases is a finding, supported by competent substantial evidence, that the claimant acted in deliberate and intentional disobedience (in some instances, in flagrant disregard) of a supervisor’s order. That distinguishes the cited cases from this, in which there is no showing that the claimant either deliberately or intentionally violated the employer’s policy.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER, GROSS, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCARTY v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & St. Augustine Trains, Inc., 878 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…sed, unequivocal, and deliberate disobedience. The present case is devoid of any evidence that Ms. McCarty deliberately or intentionally acted against her employer’s interests, even though a policy was violated. See Finish Line Feed, Inc. v. Acosta, 748 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“[P]roof of the claimant’s violation of the employer’s known policy did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct connected with work. The employer cites ... cases in which a single act of misconduct was found as d…
-
Debi Thorkelson v. NY Pizza & Pasta Inc., 956 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…sed, unequivocal, and deliberate disobedience. The present case is devoid of any evidence that Ms. McCarty deliberately or intentionally acted against her employer’s interests, even though a policy was violated. See Finish Line Feed, Inc. v. Acosta, 748 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“[PJroof of the claimant’s violation of the employer’s known policy did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct connected with work. The employer cites ... cases in which a single act of misconduct was found as d…
-
Gongaware v. State OF Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Affirmed Corp., 882 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…hose warnings). “An employee’s outright refusal to perform an employer’s valid and reasonable work order amounts to misconduct.” Torres v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 862 So. 2d 26, 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Finish Line Feed, Inc. v. Acosta, 748 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (finding that deliberate or intentional disregard of an employer’s policy amounts to misconduct); Nat’l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 495 So. 2d 244, 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that denial of u…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- John v. Smith and Lucy L. Smith, 368 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Clay Cnty. Sheriff's Off. v. Loos, 570 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Rosa v. Jefferson's Stores, Inc., 421 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Hall v. State, 588 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Thurber v. Hillier & Wanless, P.A., 642 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Vaughan v. Shop & GO, Inc., 526 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)