SUNSHINE GUARDRAIL CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND GARY D. GROVES, 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.
Sunshine Guardrail appealed an unemployment compensation decision awarding benefits to an employee discharged for failing to properly secure cargo, arguing the conduct constituted disqualifying misconduct. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that carelessness or negligence in isolated instances does not rise to the level of misconduct required under unemployment compensation law.
The court held that the employee's conduct constituted mere carelessness or negligence in an isolated instance, not misconduct as defined by statute. Carelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design is required to disqualify an employee from unemployment benefits.
[1] Carelessness or negligence in job performance, without more, does not constitute "misconduct" sufficient to disqualify an employee from unemployment compensation benefits…
[2] Inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances do not rise to the level of "misconduct" as defined by unemployment compensation statutes.
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“mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment of discretion are not to be deemed 'misconduct' within the meaning of the statute”
Establishes the legal standard that isolated negligence does not constitute disqualifying misconduct under unemployment compensation law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Groves worked as a mechanic general laborer for Sunshine Guardrail from April 2006 to July 2009. On July 1, 2009, Groves failed to properly secur…
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 Good Faith Errors In Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
On sufficient evidence, the appeals referee found that the appellee was discharged for carelessness in the performance of his job which did not rise to the level of “misconduct,” as required to disqualify him from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.1 The affir-mance of that decision by the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission is itself affirmed. See Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 665 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Garcia v. Viking Life-Saving Equip. Am., Inc., 728 So.2d 295, 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Miller v. Barnett Bank of Broward County, 650 So.2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm’n, 154 So.2d 334, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).2
The fact that, as the employer argues, the employee may have been cited for previous mistakes, none of which involved *198misconduct, does not affect the result. Several zeros are still zero.3 See Poole v. J.B. Hunt Trans., Inc., 703 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Home Depot USA Inc., 665 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Miller v. Barnett Bank OF Broward Cnty. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 650 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Andre v. Poole, 703 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Pate v. State, 728 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)