ALBERT ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, ET AL., 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.
Robinson appeals the Unemployment Appeals Commission's affirmation of his disqualification from unemployment benefits after being terminated by Florida Hospital for threatening to kill a coworker and using a racial slur. The court affirmed the commission's decision, holding that Robinson's conduct constituted willful, wanton, and deliberate misconduct supported by competent, substantial evidence.
The court affirmed that Robinson's threatening conduct and use of a racial epithet constitute employment-related misconduct that disentitles him to unemployment benefits. The conduct clearly violated the employer's Rules of Conduct and was willful, wanton, and deliberate as required by statute.
[1] To properly deny unemployment compensation, the discharged employee's conduct must be willful, wanton, and deliberate, and established by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] Threatening to kill a coworker constitutes employment-related misconduct disentitling an employee to unemployment benefits.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“To properly deny unemployment compensation, the discharged employee's conduct must not only rise to misconduct to justify termination, it must be willful, wanton and deliberate, and it must be established by competent, substantial evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for disqualifying an employee from unemployment benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson was terminated by Florida Hospital after he threatened to kill a coworker and called him a racial epithet. This behavior violated the employe…
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 Credibility Of Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
[*427] SHARP, W., J.
Robinson appeals from the decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which affirmed the appeals referee’s determination that Robinson was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits pursuant to section 443.036, Florida Statutes, after being terminated by his employer, Florida Hospital. To properly deny unemployment compensation, the discharged employee’s conduct must not only rise to misconduct to justify termination,1 it must be willful, wanton and deliberate, and it must be established by competent, substantial evidence.2 We affirm.
In this case, Robinson was terminated after he threatened to kill a coworker and called him a “nigger.” This behavior violated Florida Hospital’s Rules of Conduct (Rules), which specifically prohibits fighting, threatening, intimidating, attempting bodily harm or injury, or interfering with another person. It is grounds under the Rules for immediate discharge. Prior to terminating Robinson, his employer conducted an investigation of the incident.
The appeals referee conducted a hearing and both sides presented testimony and evidence. Robinson denied having made the threat and the employee testified he did. The referee expressly stated the threatened employee was credible and found that Robinson, without provocation, threatened to kill a fellow employee and used a degrading racial epithet. Credibility of witnesses is in the lap of the factfinder. Neither the Commission nor this court can over-turn such a fact finding when supported by competent, substantial evidence.3
Given that Robinson made such a threat, it clearly constitutes employment-related misconduct which disentitles him to unemployment benefits. Henry v. Cordis Corporation, 626 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS and TORPY, JJ., concur. . See Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 822 So. 2d 563, 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Proffitt v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 658 So. 2d 185, 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
. Suluki v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 644 So. 2d 552, 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
. See St. Augustine Church v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 754 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Novas v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 735 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Fink v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 665 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Space Sci. Servs. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 968 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…, 930 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Neither the UAC nor the district court of appeal can overturn an appeals referee’s finding of fact if that finding of fact is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Robinson v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 899 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Section 443.101(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes (2004) provides: 443.101. Disqualification for benefits An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: (l)(a) For the week in which he or she has voluntarily left his or her w…
Authorities Cited
- Jeri R. Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 822 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Home Depot USA Inc., 665 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ruiz v. Shlachtman, 754 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Suluki v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 644 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Proffitt v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 658 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Henry v. Cordis Corp., 626 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Crowder v. State, 735 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)