Delaughter v. Florida Unemployment Appeals

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Delaughter v. Florida Unemployment Appeals

847 So. 2d 1058, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8280, 2003 WL 21459039

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 4, 2003

DocketNo. 3D03-202

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 847 So. 2d 1058 (Delaughter v. Florida Unemployment Appeals) 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

Delaughter v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 847 So. 2d 1058, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8280, 2003 WL 21459039 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tony I. Delaughter appeals an order denying unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.

Claimant-appellant Delaughter delivered pianos for the appellee-employer, Bobbs Piano Sales & Service Inc. Upon arriving at an 8:00 p.m. delivery at the end of the workday, he found that a large piano had to be carried up three flights of narrow stairs. He was accompanied by an inexperienced assistant. He testified that he refused to proceed with the delivery because there was a risk of personal injury, and damage to the piano, without experienced help. The customer was willing to delay the delivery. Upon the refusal of the claimant to proceed, the employer fired him.

We reverse because the employer’s testimony at the hearing completely failed to address, much less rebut, the claimant’s testimony about the risk of personal injury or property damage if the delivery proceeded without more experienced help. Given the safety issue, the refusal to proceed did not constitute misconduct. See Copple v. U.S. Postal Serv., 805 So.2d 922, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Wall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 682 So.2d 1187, 1188-1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Accordingly, the order denying unemployment benefits is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Tony I. Delaughter appeals an order denying unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.

Claimant-appellant Delaughter delivered pianos for the appellee-employer, Bobbs Piano Sales & Service Inc. Upon arriving at an 8:00 p.m. delivery at the end of the workday, he found that a large piano had to be carried up three flights of narrow stairs. He was accompanied by an inexperienced assistant. He testified that he refused to proceed with the delivery because there was a risk of personal injury, and damage to the piano, without experienced help. The customer was willing to delay the delivery. Upon the refusal of the claimant to proceed, the employer fired him.

We reverse because the employer’s testimony at the hearing completely failed to address, much less rebut, the claimant’s testimony about the risk of personal injury or property damage if the delivery proceeded without more experienced help. Given the safety issue, the refusal to proceed did not constitute misconduct. See Copple v. U.S. Postal Serv., 805 So.2d 922, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Wall v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 682 So.2d 1187, 1188-1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

Accordingly, the order denying unemployment benefits is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

847 So. 2d 1058, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8280, 2003 WL 21459039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delaughter-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack