RESPONSIBLE VENDORS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE 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.
Responsible Vendors, Inc. appealed a decision awarding unemployment benefits to a former employee despite her termination. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the award, holding that misconduct sufficient to justify dismissal does not automatically disqualify an employee from unemployment benefits unless it involves intentional behavior or recklessness manifesting wrongful intent.
The court affirmed the award of benefits, holding that misconduct warranting dismissal does not necessarily result in forfeiture of unemployment compensation. To deny benefits, the employer must prove intentional misconduct or behavior showing recklessness, wrongful intent, or evil design as defined by Florida Statute § 443.036(29).
[1] Misbehavior serious enough to warrant an employee's dismissal is not necessarily serious enough to sustain a forfeiture of unemployment compensation benefits.
[2] "Misconduct connected with work" requires proof that an employee acted intentionally or with a degree of carelessness or negligence manifesting wrongful intent or evil de…
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“misbehavior serious enough to warrant an employee's dismissal is not necessarily serious enough to sustain a forfeiture of unemployment compensation benefits”
Establishes the core principle that termination and unemployment benefits are separate inquiries
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAva J. De Oliveira-Zappia was terminated from her employment with Responsible Vendors, Inc. The Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission awarded her…
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 Misconduct Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
Responsible Vendors, Inc. appeals from an order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission affirming the award of unemployment benefits to the former employee, Ava J. De Oliveira-Zappia. We affirm. See Frazier v. Home Shopping Club LP, 784 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that misbehavior serious enough to warrant an employee’s dismissal is not necessarily serious enough to sustain a forfeiture of unemployment compensation benefits). In order to support a denial of benefits, “misconduct connected with work” is not mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of an inability or incapacity, inadvertence, good faith errors in *562judgment or discretion, or ordinary negligence in isolated instances. Id. Rather, the employer must prove that the employee behaved intentionally or with a degree of carelessness or negligence that manifests a wrongful intent or evil design, or otherwise 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 Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 60 So.3d 492, 494. (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“While we agree that on this record [Clai-maint’s] termination from her job was justified, we cannot agree that this conduct constitutes misconduct that would disqualify her from receiving benefits.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. City OF Winter Haven & Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 210 So. 3d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…953, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that isolated instances of ordinary negligence or good faith errors in judgment do not amount to misconduct for which benefits can be denied); Responsible Vendors, Inc. v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 172 So. 3d 561, 561-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that isolated instances of “good faith errors in judgment or discretion” do not support a denial of benefits); Cesar, 121 So. 3d at 1184 n. 3 (“Generally, an employee must evidence intentional insubordination to m…
Authorities Cited
- Yost v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Hope of Lee Cnty., Inc., 848 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Frazier v. Home Shopping Club LP, 784 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- DEL Pino v. Arrow AIR Inc., 920 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Mongeau v. State, 60 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Arroyo v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Marshalls of MA, Inc., 60 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)