TONY I. DELAUGHTER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS, ETC., ET AL., 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 claimant's refusal to proceed with a piano delivery due to safety concerns did not constitute misconduct disqualifying him from unemployment benefits.
The claimant refused to deliver a piano up three flights of narrow stairs with an inexperienced assistant due to a risk of personal injury and propert…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tony I. Delaughter appeals an order denying unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.
Claimant-appellant Delaughter delivered pianos for the appellee-employer, Bobbs Piano Sales & Service Inc. Upon arriving at an 8:00 p.m. delivery at the end of the workday, he found that a large piano had to be carried up three flights of narrow stairs. He was accompanied by an inexperienced assistant. He testified that he refused to proceed with the delivery because there was a risk of personal injury, and damage to the piano, without experienced help. The customer was willing to delay the delivery. Upon the refusal of the claimant to proceed, the employer fired him.
We reverse because the employer’s testimony at the hearing completely failed to address, much less rebut, the claimant’s testimony about the risk of personal injury or property damage if the delivery proceeded without more experienced help. Given the safety issue, the refusal to proceed did not constitute misconduct. See Copple v. U.S. Postal Serv., 805 So. 2d 922, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Wall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 682 So. 2d 1187, 1188-1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Accordingly, the order denying unemployment benefits is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Viera v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Paradise Parking Sys., LLC., 54 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…duction work did not constitute misconduct that would preclude award of unemployment compensation benefits, as claimant had previously suffered from allergies from chemicals used in manufacturing department); Delaughter v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals, 847 So. 2d 1058, 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (reversing because employer’s testimony completely failed to address, much less rebut, claimant’s testimony about the risk of person [*543] al injury in delivering a piano); Crosby v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Wall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 682 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Copple v. U.S. Postal Serv., 805 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)