KENNETH E. ETIENNE, APPELLANT,
v.
MUVICO THEATRES, INC. 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.
Hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.
An employee was denied unemployment benefits after admitting to leaving a bag of cash on a counter, but the employer's evidence consisted solely of he…
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 Hearsay Evidence In Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Kenneth E. Etienne appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission denying him unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.
At the hearings before the appeals referee, the only evidence presented by the employer was the testimony of its Director of Human Resources, who was not present at any of the incidents leading to Mr. Etienne’s termination. As such, the director could only provide hearsay testimony regarding the events leading to termination and allegedly supporting denial of benefits. While hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings, hearsay alone is insufficient to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Cullen v. Neighborly Senior Servs., Inc., 775 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Durall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 743 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Brown v. Int’l Paper Co., 710 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The statements of Muvico, Inc., employees, in the department’s file, were also hearsay and could not support the referee’s finding for the same reason. Competent substantial evidence to support denial of unemployment benefits cannot be based exclusively on hearsay. Cullen; Doyle.
Although Mr. Etienne admitted to leaving a bag of cash on a concession stand counter, it is unrebutted that the bag was left on a back counter not accessible to the public. This instance of poor judgment does not rise to the level of misconduct as that term is defined in section 443.036(29), Fla. Stat. (2000). Cullen; Doyle.
Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand to award Mr. Etienne unemployment benefits.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Janelle M. Amador v. Norcross Teleservices, Inc., 847 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…in. “Mere exercise of poor judgment does not amount to misconduct sufficient to support the denial of unemployment benefits.” Navarrete v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 726 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Etienne v. Muvico Theatres, Inc., 792 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). See also Smith v. Krugman-Kadi, 547 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 558 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, the order is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant claimant unemployment benefits. Rev…
Authorities Cited
- Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Mid-State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Cullen v. Neighborly Senior Servs., Inc., 775 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Brown v. Int'l Paper Co. & State of Fla., 710 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Durall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & BellSouth Commc'n Sys., Inc., 743 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)