Lewis v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

58 So. 3d 429, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5429, 2011 WL 1451769
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 15, 2011·No. No. 1D10-1142·Published

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

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

58 So. 3d 429 (Lewis v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mason v. Load King Mfg. Co.
758 So. 2d 649 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Hamilton v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
880 So. 2d 1284 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)