Greenfield v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Greenfield v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

890 So. 2d 1238, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 213, 2005 WL 94510

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-0592

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 890 So. 2d 1238 (Greenfield v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission) 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

Greenfield v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 890 So. 2d 1238, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 213, 2005 WL 94510 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which adopted the conclusion of the appeals referee that appellant, Claude Greenfield, was disqualified from receiving benefits under sections 443.036(29) and 443.101(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). The record shows that claimant’s failure to comply with an employer directive involved a combination of misunderstanding and poor judgment, which may have justified the employer’s termination of his employment, but did not amount to misconduct as to deny unem[1239]*1239ployment benefits. See Powell v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 886 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); McCarty v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 878 So.2d 432, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Ash v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 872 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

REVERSED.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which adopted the conclusion of the appeals referee that appellant, Claude Greenfield, was disqualified from receiving benefits under sections 443.036(29) and 443.101(l)(a)2, Florida Statutes (2002). The record shows that claimant’s failure to comply with an employer directive involved a combination of misunderstanding and poor judgment, which may have justified the employer’s termination of his employment, but did not amount to misconduct as to deny unem[1239]*1239ployment benefits. See Powell v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 886 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); McCarty v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 878 So.2d 432, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Ash v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 872 So.2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

REVERSED.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

890 So. 2d 1238, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 213, 2005 WL 94510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenfield-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack