Amador v. Norcross Teleservices, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amador v. Norcross Teleservices, Inc.

847 So. 2d 1129, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9406, 2003 WL 21458774

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 25, 2003

DocketNo. 3D02-1469

StatusPublished

This text of 847 So. 2d 1129 (Amador v. Norcross Teleservices, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amador v. Norcross Teleservices, Inc., 847 So. 2d 1129, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9406, 2003 WL 21458774 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SHEVIN, Judge.

Janelle Amador appeals the denial of unemployment benefits. We reverse. The referee found that Amador was discharged because she allowed her co-worker to log her password in at Amador’s telephone station when Amador returned to her car in the parking lot to retrieve her lunch. This may be serious enough to warrant dismissal; however, it is insufficient to justify denial of benefits. See Galletti v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 652 [1130]*1130So.2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Bigler v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 841 So.2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and cases cited therein. “Mere exercise of poor judgment does not amount to misconduct sufficient to support the denial of unemployment benefits.” Navarrete v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 726 So.2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Etienne v. Muvico Theatres, Inc., 792 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). See also Smith v. Krugman-Kadi, 547 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 558 So.2d 20 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, the order is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant claimant unemployment benefits.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHEVIN, Judge.

Janelle Amador appeals the denial of unemployment benefits. We reverse. The referee found that Amador was discharged because she allowed her co-worker to log her password in at Amador’s telephone station when Amador returned to her car in the parking lot to retrieve her lunch. This may be serious enough to warrant dismissal; however, it is insufficient to justify denial of benefits. See Galletti v. Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 652 [1130]*1130So.2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Bigler v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 841 So.2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and cases cited therein. “Mere exercise of poor judgment does not amount to misconduct sufficient to support the denial of unemployment benefits.” Navarrete v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 726 So.2d 833, 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Etienne v. Muvico Theatres, Inc., 792 So.2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). See also Smith v. Krugman-Kadi, 547 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 558 So.2d 20 (Fla.1990). Accordingly, the order is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant claimant unemployment benefits.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

847 So. 2d 1129, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9406, 2003 WL 21458774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amador-v-norcross-teleservices-inc-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack