JOAN M. BIGLER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND BATH & BODY WORKS, INC., 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.
Joan Bigler was terminated for removing merchandise from her employer's store, but she gave the item to employees of another business as compensation for free services rendered to the store. The court reversed the denial of unemployment benefits, holding that a mistake in judgment of this kind does not constitute disqualifying misconduct under Florida law.
The court held that a mistake in judgment of this kind does not amount to disqualifying misconduct as a matter of law, and therefore the employee is eligible for unemployment benefits. The court reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's decision and remanded with instructions that there was no disqualifying conduct.
[1] Misconduct, for purposes of unemployment compensation, does not include mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, inadvertencies, ordinary negligence in isolated instanc…
[2] The cumulative effect of minor infractions may rise to the level of misconduct if they demonstrate a pattern of disregard for an employer's duties and obligations.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a mistake in judgment of this kind does not, as a matter of law, amount to disqualifying misconduct”
Establishes the court's holding that judgment errors are not misconduct for unemployment purposes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBigler was employed by Bath & Body Works and was fired for removing a 'tester' product from the store. However, she did not remove the item for person…
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 Good Faith Errors In Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was fired because she had removed a “tester” from the shop at which she was employed. It was undisputed, however, that she did not do so for her own purposes, but instead gave the item to employees of another business for services it had provided to the store at no cost. We reverse the denial of the unemployment compensation benefits below on the grounds stated by the Chair of the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s dissenting opinion.1 That opinion correctly states, in accordance with countless decisions of this and every other Florida court, that a mis take in judgment of this kind does not, as a matter of law, amount to disqualifying misconduct. See Castillo v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 785 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Savage v. Macy’s East, Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208, 1208-09 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., 637 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); King v. Walgreen Co., 635 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Accordingly, we reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order and remand with instructions that there was no disqualifying conduct and that the appellant is eligible for unemployment benefits.
. Alan Orantes Forsl, Chairman, Dissenting
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the decision of the appeals referee.
The Unemployment Compensation Law of Florida defines misconduct connected with work as:
(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. Section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes. Additionally Florida’s appellate courts have quoted with approval the following language of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636 (1941):
[M]ere 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 or discretion are not to be deemed "misconduct” within the meaning of the statute.
Tucker v. Florida Department of Commerce, 366 So. 2d 845, 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Fredericks v. Florida Department of Commerce, 323 So. 2d 286, 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So. 2d 334, 336-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
The claimant was discharged for giving merchandise to employees of another business in appreciation of the services it provided to the claimant's store at no cost. The claimant acted for the benefit of the store and not herself. While the claimant may have made an error in judgment, I do not concur in the decision of the Commission finding the claimant's actions constituted misconduct connected with work. Accordingly, I dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gyuri Garcia v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 872 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…hat he received Rodriguez’ blessing. Where the employee’s downfall is the result of an [*970] error in judgment as opposed to intentional disregard of duties and obligations, there is no misconduct. See Bigler v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 841 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (no misconduct where employee gave store merchandise, a “tester,” to employees of another business in appreciation of services provided to the store); Bates v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 655 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (refer…
-
Janelle M. Amador v. Norcross Teleservices, Inc., 847 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…her lunch. This may be serious enough to warrant dismissal; however, it is insufficient to justify denial of benefits. See Galletti v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 652 [*1130] So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Bigler v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 841 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and cases cited therein. “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…
-
LAW Offs. OF Ramon DE LA Cababa, P.A. v. Pineda, 888 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…Commission that the incident leading to the discharge of the appel-lee claimant was, as stated by the Commission, “at most, an exercise of poor judgment rather than misconduct connected with work.” See Bigler v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 841 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Tucker v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 366 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Dian L. Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., Inc., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Willis v. State, 323 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Fredericks v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 323 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Savage v. MacY'S E., Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., Inc., 637 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Morrison v. Reed, 635 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Castillo v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 785 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Castellon v. Am. Skyhawk Ins. Co., 785 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)