JANET FLINT, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA 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.
Janet Flint appeals the denial of unemployment benefits after her discharge for violating company policy. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that a single instance of poor judgment does not constitute "misconduct" under Florida law sufficient to deny unemployment compensation, particularly given her fifteen-year unblemished employment record.
Flint's action did not constitute misconduct as defined by section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes. An exercise of poor judgment, even when in violation of company policy and justifying discharge, does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits. Misconduct typically involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings.
[1] An exercise of poor judgment does not constitute "misconduct" sufficient to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.
[2] A single incident in violation of company policy over a lengthy career does not necessarily rise to the level of misconduct for unemployment benefit purposes.
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“an 'exercise of poor judgment [that] does not amount to misconduct sufficient to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.'”
Establishes the core legal standard that poor judgment alone cannot support denial of benefits, even if it violates policy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlint was discharged from employment after a fifteen-year career with an otherwise unblemished record. The incident for which she was discharged invol…
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.
Janet Flint (“Flint”) appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission that affirmed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse because Flint’s action did not constitute “misconduct” as defined by section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2010).
A review of the record demonstrates that the incident for which Flint was discharged from employment, after an otherwise unblemished fifteen-year career with the employer, amounted to an “exercise of poor judgment [that] does not amount to misconduct sufficient to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” Fenelus v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 727 So.2d 274, 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (quoting Navarrete v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 726 So.2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)). See also Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (recognizing that this Court consistently has held that an exercise of poor judgment does not amount to “misconduct”). Although Flint’s action was in violation of a stated company policy and may have justified her discharge from employment, “such conduct does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits.” Miller v. Barnett Bank of Broward Cnty., 650 So.2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); accord Hernandez v. Am. Gen. Fin., 39 So.3d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that one incident in violation of company policy over a fourteen-year career did not rise to the level of misconduct contemplated in section 443.036(29)); Fiedler v. Burdines, Inc., 654 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (“Misconduct usually involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings.”).
We therefore reverse the order under review and remand the case for the allowance of Flint’s claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Contreras v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n & Harold L. Simpson, 178 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…th a degree of carelessness or negligence that manifests a wrongful intent.” Id. at 562. Furthermore, conduct which justifies discharge fi*om employment does not necessarily preclude entitlement to benefits. Flint v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n 79 So. 3d 115, 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citing Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)). This ’ Court will defer to an “agency’s interpretation of a statute it is given the power and duty to administer when that interpretation is reasona…
Authorities Cited
- Dian L. Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., Inc., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Miller v. Barnett Bank OF Broward Cnty. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 650 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Vilma S. Fiedler v. Burdines, Inc., 654 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Navarrete v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 726 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Inseul Fenelus v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 727 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Hernandez v. Am. Gen. Fin. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 39 So. 3d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)