Clifford v. Mile Marker 82 Ltd. Partnership

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Clifford v. Mile Marker 82 Ltd. Partnership

623 So. 2d 632, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9183, 1993 WL 347496

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 14, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2664

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 623 So. 2d 632 (Clifford v. Mile Marker 82 Ltd. Partnership) 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

Clifford v. Mile Marker 82 Ltd. Partnership, 623 So. 2d 632, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9183, 1993 WL 347496 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant admits that he was not able to perform the assigned tasks in the time thought adequate by the employer. Principally, because he took too long to complete assigned tasks, he was given an unsatisfactory performance evaluation and discharged. The employer relies on that unsatisfactory job evaluation as evidence of misconduct. The appellant alleges that he was terminated because of his age.

An unsatisfactory performance without a showing of “willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest” or “[cjarelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or the employee’s duties”, is not misconduct which will disqualify a discharged employee for unemployment benefits. § 443.-036(26), Fla.Stat. (1991). All that can be reasonably inferred from the evidence, as a matter of law, is that the appellant was physically unable or generally incompetent.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant admits that he was not able to perform the assigned tasks in the time thought adequate by the employer. Principally, because he took too long to complete assigned tasks, he was given an unsatisfactory performance evaluation and discharged. The employer relies on that unsatisfactory job evaluation as evidence of misconduct. The appellant alleges that he was terminated because of his age.

An unsatisfactory performance without a showing of “willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest” or “[cjarelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or the employee’s duties”, is not misconduct which will disqualify a discharged employee for unemployment benefits. § 443.-036(26), Fla.Stat. (1991). All that can be reasonably inferred from the evidence, as a matter of law, is that the appellant was physically unable or generally incompetent.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

623 So. 2d 632, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9183, 1993 WL 347496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clifford-v-mile-marker-82-ltd-partnership-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack