ROGER L. BARCHOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
SHELLS OF ST. PETE BEACH, INC., AND FLORIDA 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.
Roger Barchoff, a restaurant cashier with five years of tenure, was denied unemployment benefits after being discharged for missing a shift to see his father to the airport. The court reversed, holding that a single isolated absence with poor judgment does not constitute the willful and deliberate misconduct required by Florida law to deny unemployment compensation.
The court held that Barchoff's conduct does not constitute the willful and deliberate misconduct required by statute to deny benefits. An isolated instance of poor judgment and failure to perform work requirements does not meet the statutory definition of misconduct.
[1] Misconduct disqualifying an employee from unemployment benefits requires a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests, or carelessness or negligence of such a…
[2] Statutes governing unemployment benefits should be liberally construed in favor of the claimant.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“To meet its burden, "the employer must show more than an employee's inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or failure to perform in the work-place."”
Establishes the high threshold employers must meet to prove misconduct sufficient to deny 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 intelligenceBarchoff worked as a cashier/host at Shells restaurant for five years. In early January 2000, he had approved days off on January 10-11 for his father…
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 Carelessness Or Negligence Manifesting Culpability cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Roger Barchoff appeals the final order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission that affirmed the denial of his claim for unemployment compensation benefits. As the record does not support the conclusion that Barchoff engaged in misconduct which would mandate the denial of benefits, we reverse. Barchoff was employed as a cashier/host with Shells restaurant for five years. In early January 2000, he requested days off for January 10 and 11, 2000, due to his father visiting from out of town. The request was approved by the employer. On January 11, Barchoff called his superior and asked to be off for the following day. He had been scheduled to be at work at 8 a.m., but wanted to see his father to the airport. The superior said that Barchoff could take off if Barchoff found a replacement. Barchoff did not find a replacement and did not report for work. He was discharged from employment on the next day.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the referee concluded that because Barchoff did not find a replacement or report to work as scheduled, his discharge was for misconduct. Barchoff was denied unemployment compensation benefits.
Section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2000), defines “misconduct” as:
“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 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 obligations to his or her employer. The employer has the burden of proving misconduct. However, even if the misconduct is serious enough to warrant discharge of the employee, it may not be sufficient to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028, 1030-31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
To meet its burden, “the employer must show more than an employee’s inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or failure to perform in the work-place.” Doyle, 635 So. 2d at 1031. Repeated violations of explicit policies, after several warnings, are usually required for a finding of misconduct. Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 685 So. 2d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Fiedler v. Burdines, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Isolated instances of a failure of good performance, or good faith errors in judgment, are not deemed to be misconduct as defined in the statute. McKinney v. United States Sugar Corp., 492 So. 2d 478, 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
The evidence here reflects an isolated incident of an unexcused absence. While Barchoffs failure to report to work or to find a replacement may have shown poor judgment, it does not constitute willful and deliberate misconduct warranting the denial of benefits. Dickerson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 646 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
We therefore reverse the order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission and remand for entry of an order authorizing Barchoff to receive unemployment compensation benefits.
PARKER, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Jeri R. Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 822 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…o. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Rogers v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 597 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Daniels v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 531 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); see also Barchoff v. Shells of St. Pete Beach, Inc., 787 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). . Rodriguez v. Svinga Bros. Corp., 802 So. 2d 455, 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)); Glenn v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 731 So. 2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“W…
-
ASH v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 872 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…513 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). “While a violation of an employer’s policy1 may constitute misconduct, ‘[rjepeated violations of explicit policies, after several warnings, are usually required.’ Barchoff v. Shells of St. Pete Beach, Inc., 787 So. 2d 935, 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).” Cooksey-James v. Unemplmt. App. Comm’n, 869 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In Seger v. Danner Construction Co., 611 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), an employee was warned when he failed to show up for work one Saturday and…
-
McCARTY v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & St. Augustine Trains, Inc., 878 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…13 So. 2d 1098, 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). ‘While a violation of an employer’s policy[ ] may constitute misconduct, ‘[r]epeated violations of explicit policies, after several warnings, are usually required.’ Barchoff v. Shells of St. Pete Beach, Inc., 787 So. 2d 935, 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).’ Cooksey-James v. Unemplmt. App. Comm’n, 869 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).” Ash v. Unemplmt. App. Comm’n, 872 So. 2d 400, 402 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Ms. McCarty’s discharge resulted from a single, isolated incident,4 and di…
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
- Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Mid-State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Edmond A. Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Fla. Sheriff's Youth Ranches, Inc., 685 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Vilma S. Fiedler v. Burdines, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- McKINNEY v. United States Sugar Corp. & State of Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 492 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Dickerson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Capitol Holding Agency Grp., Inc., 646 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)