Losa v. Diana Foods Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Losa v. Diana Foods Inc.

705 So. 2d 716, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1362, 1998 WL 65313

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1522

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 705 So. 2d 716 (Losa v. Diana Foods 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

Losa v. Diana Foods Inc., 705 So. 2d 716, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1362, 1998 WL 65313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the Unemployment Compensation Appeals Referee’s conclusion that the appellant was discharged on the basis of misconduct connected with work. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive his unemployment compensation benefits. See Coffey v. Florida Foster Care Review Project, Inc., 704 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Baptiste v. Waste Management, Inc., 701 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (an isolated error in judgment does not constitute misconduct); Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“Although an employee’s actions may justify discharge, the same conduct does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits.”); Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 685 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (misconduct typically involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings); Seger v. Danner Construction Co., Inc., 611 So.2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (failure to inform employer of absence due to illness when scheduled to work overtime constituted poor judgment but did not rise to level of misconduct).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the Unemployment Compensation Appeals Referee’s conclusion that the appellant was discharged on the basis of misconduct connected with work. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to receive his unemployment compensation benefits. See Coffey v. Florida Foster Care Review Project, Inc., 704 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Baptiste v. Waste Management, Inc., 701 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (an isolated error in judgment does not constitute misconduct); Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (“Although an employee’s actions may justify discharge, the same conduct does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits.”); Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 685 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (misconduct typically involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings); Seger v. Danner Construction Co., Inc., 611 So.2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (failure to inform employer of absence due to illness when scheduled to work overtime constituted poor judgment but did not rise to level of misconduct).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 716, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1362, 1998 WL 65313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/losa-v-diana-foods-inc-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack