Fenelus v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fenelus v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

727 So. 2d 274, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1291, 1999 WL 68629

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1711

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 727 So. 2d 274 (Fenelus v. Publix Super Markets, 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

Fenelus v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 727 So. 2d 274, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1291, 1999 WL 68629 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Inseul Fenelus appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the referee’s denial of unemployment benefits. We reverse.

The record reveals that Fenelus’ actions demonstrate “the mere exercise of poor judgment [that] does not amount to misconduct sufficient to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” Navarrete v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 726 So.2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). See, e.g., Baptiste v. Waste Management, Inc., 701 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., Inc., 637 So.2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We are constrained to reiterate the oft-stated maxim that misconduct serious enough to justify dismissal is not ipso facto tantamount to misconduct warranting forfeiture of benefits. See Navarrete, 726 So.2d at 833; and cited cases.

Reversed and remanded with directions to grant claimant benefits.

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

PER CURIAM.

Inseul Fenelus appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the referee’s denial of unemployment benefits. We reverse.

The record reveals that Fenelus’ actions demonstrate “the mere exercise of poor judgment [that] does not amount to misconduct sufficient to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.” Navarrete v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 726 So.2d 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). See, e.g., Baptiste v. Waste Management, Inc., 701 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., Inc., 637 So.2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). We are constrained to reiterate the oft-stated maxim that misconduct serious enough to justify dismissal is not ipso facto tantamount to misconduct warranting forfeiture of benefits. See Navarrete, 726 So.2d at 833; and cited cases.

Reversed and remanded with directions to grant claimant benefits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

727 So. 2d 274, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1291, 1999 WL 68629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fenelus-v-publix-super-markets-inc-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack