Henry v. Cordis Corp.

626 So. 2d 1029, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11263, 1993 WL 458952
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 9, 1993
DocketNo. 93-720
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 626 So. 2d 1029 (Henry v. Cordis Corp.) 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
Henry v. Cordis Corp., 626 So. 2d 1029, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11263, 1993 WL 458952 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The claimant appeals the determination of misconduct which disqualified her from receiving unemployment compensation. We affirm.

The claimant worked closely with a coworker, Fleming. Friction developed between the pair and claimant asked to be rotated to another work unit. A supervisor determined and reported to the claimant that the move could not be accomplished for several days. Evidently, thereafter a dispute erupted and the claimant struck Fleming. Furthermore, two supervisors who attempted to intervene were injured. Both claimant and Fleming were discharged. In a separate proceeding, Fleming sought unemployment compensation and prevailed with the referee in that proceeding determining that the claimant here was the aggressor. Likewise, the referee in the instant case found the claimant was the aggressor and specifically rejected her defense of provocation or “hot blood.”

The present case is materially different from Davis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 472 So.2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) partly relied upon by the claimant. First, in Davis, the claimant was not found to be the instigator; second, the claim of “hot blood” substantiated in Davis, was specifically rejected by the referee herein. The instant case invokes the general rule, stated in Davis, that a claimant’s threat of physical violence directed at a fellow employee leading to the claimant’s discharge constitutes employment-related “misconduct” which dis-entitles the claimant to unemployment benefits.

[1030]*1030Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.

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

Related

Robinson v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
899 So. 2d 426 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Quintana v. Miami Pizza, Inc.
731 So. 2d 824 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Jackson v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'N
730 So. 2d 719 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
626 So. 2d 1029, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11263, 1993 WL 458952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-cordis-corp-fladistctapp-1993.