CLARA B. SWOPE, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW AND JACKSON'S-BYRON DEPARTMENT STORE, RESPONDENTS; LUCILLE ASH, PETITIONER, V. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW AND JACKSON'S-BYRON DEPARTMENT STORE, RESPONDENTS
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.
Two employees of Jackson's-Byron Department Store were discharged for refusing to submit to polygraph tests after the employer announced it would require periodic lie detector tests due to inventory shortages. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the refusal to take a lie detector test, under these circumstances, did not constitute misconduct connected with work and therefore the employees were not disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits.
The court held that the employees' refusal to take the lie detector test did not constitute misconduct connected with their work and therefore did not disqualify them from unemployment compensation benefits. While the employer could impose such a rule and discharge an employee for refusing to comply, the discharge itself was not based on misconduct as defined by the unemployment compensation statute.
“violation of an employer's rule which leads to discharge will not disqualify one for benefits unless it appears that the action which prompted the discharge amounted to misconduct within the meaning of the Act”
Establishes the legal standard that employer rule violations do not automatically disqualify employees from benefits without evidence of misconduct
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson's-Byron Department Store noticed merchandise and money shortages and announced that employees would be required to submit to periodic polygrap…
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
On certiorari we here review decisions of the Commission that the petitioners, who applied for unemployment compensation, were disqualified for having voluntarily left their employment without good cause.1 The two cases were consolidated and heard together.
Petitioners were employed by the respondent Jackson’s-Byron Department Store (hereinafter referred to as Byron’s). Up*654on noting shortages, Byron’s gave notice that employees would be required to submit to polygraph, or lie detector tests periodically, and would be asked, as to the period of 'time following such notice, whether they had taken merchandise or money. When called on to take such tests petitioners refused, and because they refused were discharged.
At the outset we observe the record does not support the conclusion reached by the appeals referee and adopted by the Board that petitioners voluntarily left their employ. After refusing to take the test petitioners reported for work the following day but were paid off and turned away. The determinative question is whether their refusal to submit .to a lie detector test, in the circumstances presented, amounted to misconduct, connected with .their work. We hold it did not and that the challenged ruling was erroneous.
Byron’s could impose the rule and could discharge an employee who would not take the lie detector test. However, violation of. an employer’s rule which leads to discharge will not disqualify one for benefits unless it appears that the action which prompted the discharge amounted to misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Here the petitioners’ discharge was not based ■ on misconduct as defined. See Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 334. In the only case brought to our attention dealing with whether an employee’s refusal to take a lie detector test constitutes good cause for dismissal, it was held by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the refusal of a civil service employee to take a polygraph test was not just cause for his dismissal.. See Stape v. Civil Service Comm. of City of Philadelphia, 404 Pa. 354, 172 A.2d 161.
In the instant case petitioners had not been singled out and accused of any acts of dishonesty. As to them the test was a fishing expedition. It has been disclosed that a tenth of the population are unfit subjects for polygraph tests, and that such tests tend to inaccuracies in from something less than ten up to twenty-five per centum of cases. See People v. Davis, 343 Mich. 348, 72 N.W.2d 269. Thus an innocent employee taking such a test could be risking loss of job and reputation at odds similar to those in Russian roulette. A different case would be made out for such refusal by one who entered the employment after the rule for lie detector tests was in effect and with knowledge that it was a condition of employment or continued employment; that is not this case, and we express no opinion thereon.
For the reason stated, certiorari is granted and the challenged orders in the above styled cases are quashed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Farmer v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 427 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1983)…oyees insofar as concerns their discharge for refusal to take a polygraph. It stated: We see a decided distinction between the foregoing cases that involve public employees and cases such as Swope v. Florida Indus. Comm., Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Rev., 159 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964), that involve the discharge of private employees for refusal to take a polygraph examination without the necessity to submit to such examination being known conditions of their employment. The personal integrity of the employees…
-
Lamb v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Dump-All, Inc., 424 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…cause we do not think Lamb’s conduct as disclosed by the record falls within the definition of misconduct under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law,1 we reverse. Swope v. Florida Industrial Commission Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 159 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Lamb was a truck driver for Dump-All, Inc., a refuse company. Dump-All had strict rules for attendance. If an employee failed to appear for work or call in prior to an absence, he was subject to immediate dismissal. Lamb spent t…
-
Thomas v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 864 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…employee’s hiring. See AAA Gold Coast Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Weiss, 654 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Vaughn v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 482 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Swope v. Fla. Indus. Comm’n Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 159 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). When, at the time an employee was hired, the employer had no preset policy with which the employee was required to comply as a condition of continued employment, refusal to comply with the policy at the employer’s request does no…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)