MIGUEL A. DEL PINO, APPELLANT,
v.
ARROW AIR INCORPORATED, AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of unemployment benefits to Miguel Del Pino, an import dispatch clerk, finding that his refusal to sign a written warning did not constitute misconduct under Florida unemployment compensation law.
The court held that Del Pino's conduct did not constitute misconduct. The termination resulted solely from his refusal to sign the warning rather than from the underlying act of not entering information into the computer system, and without prior warnings, a single isolated incident of policy non-compliance does not rise to the level of misconduct that would justify denial of unemployment benefits.
[1] Unemployment compensation statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the employee.
[2] Disqualifying misconduct for unemployment benefits requires more than mere unsatisfactory work performance.
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“Under these circumstances, the employee's actions did not rise to the level of misconduct that would result in denial of unemployment benefits.”
Establishes that the termination based on refusal to sign a warning was not misconduct justifying benefit denial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDel Pino worked for Arrow Air, Inc. as an import dispatch clerk from July 2003 to April 2005. On April 6, 2005, he was asked to enter information into…
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 Intentional And Substantial Disregard Of Employer'S Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
CORTINAS, Judge.
We reverse a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission [UAC] disqualifying the claimant, Miguel Del Pino, from receiving unemployment benefits based on misconduct connected with work.
The appeals referee found that the claimant was not entitled to receive unemployment benefits due to “misconduct” as that term is understood under unemployment compensation law. The claimant worked for Arrow Air, Inc. as an import dispatch clerk from July 22, 2003 to April 8, 2005. On April 6, 2005, the claimant was asked to enter certain information into the company’s computer system. The claimant testified that, due to renovations of the work premises, there was only one computer available for inputting the requested information and that this computer was assigned to another employee, thereby restricting the claimant’s use of the computer. Because the information was not inputted in the computer system, the claimant’s supervisor prepared a written warning, which included a two-day suspension of the claimant. The claimant asked to appeal the warning to the company’s human resources personnel. When the claimant refused to sign the warning, he was immediately terminated.
The appeals referee denied the claimant unemployment benefits based on a determination that the claimant was properly discharged for misconduct connected with work. § 443.101(l)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). The claimant timely appealed the referee’s decision to the UAC. The UAC entered an order affirming the appeals referee’s decision. The claimant’s appeal follows.
The claimant contends that his acts did not constitute misconduct in connection with work within the meaning of section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2003).1 We agree.
This case is distinguishable from our holding in Moncaleano v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 883 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), where the claimant had received two (2) prior warnings before the misconduct for which he was terminated. Here, Mr. Del Pino would not have been terminated but for the fact that he did not agree to sign the employer’s warning. When Del Pino refused to sign the warning, the employer responded by firing him and converting the sole warning into a termination. Under these circumstances, the employee’s actions did not rise to the level of misconduct that would result in denial of unemployment benefits.
This appeal more properly resembles cases dealing with an isolated incident, such as an employee’s failure to follow policies and rules, which is not considered “misconduct” that would result in denial of unemployment benefits. Rosas v. Remington Hospitality, Inc., 899 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 822 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 664 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Menendez v. River Orchids Inv. Corp., 653 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
Accordingly, we reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order denying unemployment benefits to the claimant.
Reversed.
. "Misconduct” is defined in section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2003):
(29) "Misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, the following, which may not be construed in pari materia with each other: (a) 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; or (b) Carelessness or negligence to a degree or recurrence that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or shows an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his or her employer.
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)…Cooper Transp., 852 So. 2d 398, 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The referee was obligated to construe the statute liberally in favor of the claimant. § 443.031, Fla. Stat. (2007); Davidson, 852 So. 2d at 400. In this case, as in Del Pino v. Arrow Air, Inc., 920 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), a disagreement with proposed discipline or a corrective action plan is an “isolated incident,” and does not arise to the level of “misconduct” as defined by the statute. Noting disagreement and asking for further review of a…
-
Responsible Vendors, Inc. v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 172 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…wise acted in a way that would constitute misconduct as defined in section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2015). Id. at 1192. See also Yost v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 848 So. 2d 1235, 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (same); Del Pino v. Arrow Air, Inc., 920 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (confirming that cases dealing with isolated incidents, such as failure to follow policies or rules, are not generally considered “misconduct” that would result in denial of unemployment benefits); Arroyo v. Florida Unemploym…
-
Arroyo v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Marshalls of MA, Inc., 60 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ounds for terminating employment is a separate issue from disqualification criteria set out in the unemployment compensation statute.” Rosas v. Remington Hospitality, Inc., 899 So. 2d 390, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Del Pino v. Airow Air Inc., 920 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (confirming that cases dealing with isolated incidents, “such as an employee’s failure to follow policies and rules,” are not generally considered ‘misconduct’ that would result in denial of unemployment benefits). In this c…
Authorities Cited
- Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 664 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Jeri R. Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 822 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Menendez v. River Orchids Inv. Corp. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 653 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Rosas v. Remington Hospitality, Inc., 899 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Moncaleano v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 883 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)