CURTIS L. HUBBARD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND ATLANTIC COAST ENVIRONMENTAL, 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.
Curtis Hubbard appealed an unemployment benefits denial after being fired for showing up to work drunk and unfit to drive. The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's determination that Hubbard's conduct constituted misconduct connected with employment under Florida law.
The court affirmed that Hubbard's conduct amounted to misconduct connected with employment because it demonstrated willful or wanton disregard of the employer's interests and was a deliberate violation of standards of behavior the employer had a right to expect from its employee.
[1] A reviewing court must defer to the factual findings of an unemployment appeals referee if the record contains substantial competent evidence to support those findings.
[2] An employee's intoxication while on duty, rendering them incapable of performing their job duties and posing a danger to themselves and the public, constitutes misconduct…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If the record shows that there was substantial competent evidence to support the factual findings of the appeals referee, then this court may not make contrary findings of fact that support a different result.”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate courts reviewing unemployment benefits decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHubbard was a truck driver who appeared for a 7:00 a.m. shift intoxicated and incapable of driving. Another employee blocked him from driving the empl…
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 Willful Or Wanton Disregard Of Employer'S Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which upheld the referee’s findings that the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with his employment. Although some of the facts were in dispute, the hearing officer is required to weigh and evaluate conflicting evidence and make findings that are entitled to deference from a reviewing court. “If the record shows that there was substantial competent evidence to support the factual findings of the appeals referee,” then this court may not make contrary findings of fact that support a different result. See Bagwell Lumber Co. v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 353 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
*1262Here the record supports the legal conclusion that the claimant’s conduct rose to the level of misconduct connected with work under section 448.036(29), Florida Statutes (2009). The claimant was a driver for his employer. He showed up for a 7:00 a.m. shift drunk and incapable of driving the employer’s truck. Another employee blocked the claimant from driving the truck away from the job site. The office manager was called and when she arrived she noted the claimant’s glassy eyes and smell of alcohol about him. Also, the claimant was staggering. The office manager took the claimant’s car keys away from him so that he could not drive himself home. She talked with him for an hour. The hearing officer found that the “claimant told the office manager that he was very depressed, and had drunk extensively the night before, late into the morning.... The claimant himself admitted that he was drunk and thanked the office manager for not allowing [him] to drive himself.” As the hearing officer observed, the claimant “was a danger to himself and the public and subjected the employer to potential liability.” Especially because the claimant’s job was as a truck driver, his actions amounted to “[cjonduct demonstrating willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests” and “was a deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his or her employee.” § 443.036(29)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009).
Affirmed.
GROSS, C.J., WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Molly Lewis Sasso, P.A. v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n & Holly H. Adamson, 124 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…And an appeals refer [*246] ee’s decision must be accepted if supported by competent substantial evidence. See Sauerland v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 923 So. 2d 1240, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Hubbard v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 53 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The law thus requires us to affirm the decision.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 353 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Bagwell Lumber Co. v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 353 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)