AT & T Communications, Inc. v. Johnson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

AT & T Communications, Inc. v. Johnson

582 So. 2d 177, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7077, 1991 WL 134040

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 23, 1991

DocketNo. 91-416

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 582 So. 2d 177 (AT & T Communications, Inc. v. Johnson) 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

AT & T Communications, Inc. v. Johnson, 582 So. 2d 177, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7077, 1991 WL 134040 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AT & T Communications, Inc., appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the decision of the appeals referee. We affirm.

There is no evidence in the record to support appellant’s allegation that the employee engaged in misconduct; accordingly, the appeals referee properly concluded that [178]*178appellant did not meet its burden of proving misconduct. “The appeals referee is the fact finder in a hearing to determine eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.” Kan v. P.G. Cook Assoc., 566 So.2d 932, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The decision of the appeals referee is supported by competent substantial evidence, Kan; Hines v. Department of Labor & Employment Sec., 455 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sanchez v. Department of Labor & Employment Sec., State of Fla., Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 411 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and was properly affirmed by the Commission. We therefore affirm the Commission’s order.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

AT & T Communications, Inc., appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the decision of the appeals referee. We affirm.

There is no evidence in the record to support appellant’s allegation that the employee engaged in misconduct; accordingly, the appeals referee properly concluded that [178]*178appellant did not meet its burden of proving misconduct. “The appeals referee is the fact finder in a hearing to determine eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.” Kan v. P.G. Cook Assoc., 566 So.2d 932, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The decision of the appeals referee is supported by competent substantial evidence, Kan; Hines v. Department of Labor & Employment Sec., 455 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sanchez v. Department of Labor & Employment Sec., State of Fla., Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 411 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and was properly affirmed by the Commission. We therefore affirm the Commission’s order.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 So. 2d 177, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 7077, 1991 WL 134040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/at-t-communications-inc-v-johnson-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack