ROSA M. ROBLES, APPELLANT,
v.
VICTORIA'S SECRET STORE, INC., AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's determination that an employee was discharged for misconduct and therefore disqualified from unemployment benefits.
An employee discharged for misconduct is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.
[1] A single act in violation of company policy may constitute misconduct disqualifying an employee from unemployment compensation benefits under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRosa Robles was discharged from her employment at Victoria's Secret Store, Inc. The Unemployment Appeals Commission concluded she was discharged for m…
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 Unemployment Compensation Benefits Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Judge.
We affirm the final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which concluded that the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with her employment. See Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 695 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(concluding that unemployment compensation claimant engaged in misconduct, so as to be disqualified from receiving benefits, when he altered his attendance records to show that he had been at work when he had not); Ford v. Southeast Atlantic Corp., 588 So. 2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(concluding that employee was properly denied benefits and observing “repeated' acts in violation of company policy are not necessary to - constitute misconduct within the meaning of Chapter 443”); Alles v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, 423 So. 2d 624, 625-26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)(eiting to Chapter 120 and observing “[t]he agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative rules in the recommended order, but may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings ' were based did not comply with essential requirements of law”).
Affirmed.
SHEPHERD, J., concurs.
[*601] COPE, J.
(dissenting).
The referee found the conduct at issue here involved poor judgment but not misconduct. The record supports that determination. See Borrego v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 884 So. 2d 520, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). The Unemployment Appeals Commission should not have overturned that determination.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reason Ford, Jr. v. Se. Atl. Corp. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 588 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- State v. Liscio, 423 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 695 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Borrego v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm., 884 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)