CHRISTINA PEADEN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Christina Peaden appealed her disqualification from unemployment benefits after being discharged for misconduct. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's finding that Peaden's use of vulgar language directed at supervisors in the presence of other employees constituted misconduct under Florida law.
Peaden's conduct constitutes misconduct under Florida law. Vulgarity directed towards a supervisor in the presence of other employees is sufficient to constitute misconduct and disqualifies an employee from receiving unemployment compensation.
[1] An appeal referee's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] Misconduct, for the purpose of unemployment benefits disqualification, includes conduct demonstrating a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests.
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“vulgarity directed towards a supervisor, in the presence of other employees, is sufficient to constitute misconduct under the statute”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes misconduct in the unemployment benefits context
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeaden was employed by City Cab Company of Orlando. There was conflicting evidence regarding whether Peaden failed to follow proper chain of command p…
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 Willful Or Wanton Disregard Of Employer'S Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
Peaden appeals from a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which upheld the determination by the appeal referee that she was discharged for misconduct and that she is therefore disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Although there were conflicts in the evidence as to whether Peaden had failed to follow the “proper chain of command” in not reporting a potentially dangerous driver working for her employer, the City Cab Company of Orlando, and the extent to which Peadon became abusive and used foul language to address her supervisors in the presence of other employees, the findings of the appeal referee are conclusive, in this case, because they are supported by competent substantial evidence. See Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 730 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc. Great American Div. v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 671 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
The referee found that Peaden used profanity toward her supervisors during a counseling session and called one supervisor a vulgar name in front of other employees.
Should this conduct be sufficient to disqualify Peaden from receiving unemployment benefits under section 443.101(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), which bars recovery of benefits for employees discharged for misconduct? Misconduct is defined, among other things, as: “conduct demonstrating willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests and found to be a deliberate violation or disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his or her employee.” 1
An isolated instance of an employee’s using vulgar language, not in the presence of others, or not directed at a supervising employee, may be insufficient. See, e.g., Bivens v. Trugreen LP, 845 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wrightington v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 833 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
However, vulgarity directed towards a supervisor, in the presence of other employees, is sufficient to constitute misconduct under the statute. See, e.g., Davis v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 715 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Suluki v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 644 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Such behavior tends to undermine the authority and respect for the employer, supervisor, or leader of an organization, and its overall morale, to such an extent that it cannot be tolerated — like mutiny on the high seas. Discharge or termination should be expected and it is serious enough to disqualify a fired employee from receiving unemployment compensation.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur. . § 443.036(29), Fla. Slat. (2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maryanne Carson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 1 So. 3d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his or her employer. . Bernhang v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 968 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). . Peaden v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 865 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).…
Authorities Cited
- Earnest Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 730 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Suluki v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 644 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 671 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Bivens v. Trugreen LP, 845 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Davis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 715 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Wrightington v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 833 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)