ANDREW F. GONGAWARE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND AFFIRMED CORPORATION, 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.
Gongaware appeals a decision disqualifying him from unemployment benefits after his discharge for refusing to comply with his employer's policy requiring him to remit 2% of credit card tips. The court affirms, holding that competent substantial evidence supported the finding that his deliberate refusal to follow a valid employer policy constituted misconduct justifying disqualification.
Gongaware was properly disqualified from unemployment benefits because competent substantial evidence supported the determination that his deliberate and repeated refusal to comply with his employer's valid and reasonable tip-sharing policy, despite multiple warnings, constituted misconduct connected with work.
[1] An administrative agency's order is presumed correct on appeal, and the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error.
[2] An administrative agency or reviewing court may not reject an administrative hearing officer's findings of fact if those findings are supported by competent, substantial…
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“While an agency may reject conclusions of law without limitation, neither an administrative agency nor a reviewing court may reject an administrative hearing officer's findings of fact, as long as those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.”
Establishes the standard of review requiring substantial evidence support for factual findings in unemployment cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGongaware signed an employment agreement with Topanga Pizza Grill requiring him to remit 2% of credit card tips to the employer, which he followed for…
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 Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
Andrew F. Gongaware challenges a final order rendered by the Unemployment Appeals Commission which affirmed a referee’s determination that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected with work.
We affirm, because competent substantial evidence supported the referee’s determination that Gongaware’s actions amounted to misconduct.
On appeal to this court, the Commission’s order is entitled to a presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Rosier v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 873 So. 2d 614, 616 (Fla.2d 2004). Also, as this court stated in Maynard v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 609 So. 2d 143, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992):
While an agency may reject conclusions of law without limitation, neither an administrative agency nor a reviewing court may reject an administrative hearing officer’s findings of fact, as long as those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record.
Id. at 145 (citations omitted).
Generally, misconduct sufficient for the forfeiture of unemployment benefits involves repeated violations of the employer’s policies after several warnings. See Jennings v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 689 So. 2d 1193, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding disqualification of benefits warranted where employee acted willfully and had been alerted to the significance of the employer’s concerns); Hines v. Dep’t of Labor & Employment Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104, 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (finding misconduct where employee had been previously warned and subsequently disregarded those warnings).
“An employee’s outright refusal to perform an employer’s valid and reasonable work order amounts to misconduct.” Torres v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 862 So. 2d 26, 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); see also Finish Line Feed, Inc. v. Acosta, 748 So. 2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (finding that deliberate or intentional disregard of an employer’s policy amounts to misconduct); Nat’l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 495 So. 2d 244, 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that denial of unemployment benefits was warranted where employees refused to participate in clean-up duties; employer’s policy was found to be reasonable and applied to all employees equally).
In this case, Gongaware signed an employment agreement which provided that he would relinquish 2%'"of the tips charged by customers on their credit cards to his employer, Topanga Pizza Grill. He complied with Topanga’s policy for approximately four years. The first time Gonga-ware refused to remit 2% of his charge tips, his employer issued him a written warning informing him that a second warning could result in suspension or termination. The next day appellant again refused. Topanga gave him a second warning and a one-week suspension. The second warning also indicated that a third warning would result in termination. When appellant returned to work after his suspension, he still refused to comply with the policy regarding tips. In response, Topanga issued a third warning and terminated appellant’s employment.
Under these facts, competent substantial evidence supported the referee’s determination that appellant was discharged for misconduct connected with work, such that he was not entitled to receive unemployment benefits.
FARMER, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leedham v. State of Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Vill. Beach Mkt., Inc., 950 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…eferee’s decision and adopted the referee’s findings of fact. On appeal, the Commission’s order is entitled to a presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. See Gongaware v. State of Fla. Unemployment Comm’n, 882 So. 2d 453, 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). As stated in Maynard v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 609 So. 2d 143, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), [w]hile an agency may reject conclusions of law without limitation, neither an administrative agency nor a reviewing cou…
-
Colin J. Moffat v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Indian Lake Ests., Inc., 33 So. 3d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…occurrence, the fact that he had been previously warned [not to challenge his superiors to fire him] ... and he disregarded that warning amounts to misconduct under the facts of the present case.”); see also Gongaware v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 882 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (affirming the denial of unemployment compensation benefits on the basis of misconduct where, despite written warnings, employee repeatedly failed to comply with a provision of his employment contract requiring him to relinquish…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Selvin G. Hines v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Maynard v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Neighborhood Variety Stores, Inc., 609 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Nat'l Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Janice A. Davis, 495 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Jennings v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Healthsouth of Fort Lauderdale, 689 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Finish Line Feed, Inc. v. Cedrick A. Acosta & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 748 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Torres v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & S. Wine & Spirits of Am., Inc., 862 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Valorie J. Rosier v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & S. Milling & Lumber, 873 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)