Lewis v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lewis v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

58 So. 3d 429, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429, 2011 WL 1451769

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 2011

DocketNo. 1D10-1142

StatusPublished

This text of 58 So. 3d 429 (Lewis 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

Lewis v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 58 So. 3d 429, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429, 2011 WL 1451769 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Fela Lewis, challenges the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s af-firmance of the appeals referee’s determination that Appellant was not entitled to unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected with work. Absenteeism can rise to the level of misconduct where there is evidence of excessive and unauthorized absenteeism. Mason v. Load King Mfg. Co., 758 So.2d 649, 654 (Fla.2000). In order for an employer to prove excessive, unauthorized absenteeism, the employer must establish a serious and identifiable pattern of absenteeism that is willful. Hamilton v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 880 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The employer failed to meet this burden in the instant case because it only established that Appellant had two unauthorized absences during the nearly two years he was employed. We, therefore, REVERSE and REMAND.

DAVIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur; WOLF, J., concurs in result.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Fela Lewis, challenges the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s af-firmance of the appeals referee’s determination that Appellant was not entitled to unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected with work. Absenteeism can rise to the level of misconduct where there is evidence of excessive and unauthorized absenteeism. Mason v. Load King Mfg. Co., 758 So.2d 649, 654 (Fla.2000). In order for an employer to prove excessive, unauthorized absenteeism, the employer must establish a serious and identifiable pattern of absenteeism that is willful. Hamilton v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 880 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The employer failed to meet this burden in the instant case because it only established that Appellant had two unauthorized absences during the nearly two years he was employed. We, therefore, REVERSE and REMAND.

DAVIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur; WOLF, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 So. 3d 429, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429, 2011 WL 1451769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack