Nguyen v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nguyen v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

755 So. 2d 763, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3746, 2000 WL 331903

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 31, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-2224

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 755 So. 2d 763 (Nguyen 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

Nguyen v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 755 So. 2d 763, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3746, 2000 WL 331903 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

John T. Nguyen appeals the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order affirming the appeals referee’s decision to deny benefits. We affirm.

Nguyen claims that the facts do not support the referee’s conclusion that Southeastern Professional Employers, Inc. (the employer) discharged him for misconduct connected with work. However, the employer presented the testimony of a general manager that Nguyen was discharged for excessive tardiness. According to the general manager, Nguyen was warned four times in writing and twice verbally that his tardiness would result in a discharge. Excessive tardiness may be a basis for a finding of misconduct connected with work within the meaning of section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1997). See Sumlar v. Intermodal Servs., Inc., 429 So.2d 364, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

An appellate court must affirm a referee’s finding of misconduct if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Scott v. Central Florida Tower Corp., 646 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). While Nguyen denied being tardy six times and being reprimanded for tardiness, such conflicts in evidence are for the fact-finder to determine. Because the general manager’s testimony supported a finding of misconduct, we affirm.

PARKER, A.C.J., and BLUE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

John T. Nguyen appeals the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order affirming the appeals referee’s decision to deny benefits. We affirm.

Nguyen claims that the facts do not support the referee’s conclusion that Southeastern Professional Employers, Inc. (the employer) discharged him for misconduct connected with work. However, the employer presented the testimony of a general manager that Nguyen was discharged for excessive tardiness. According to the general manager, Nguyen was warned four times in writing and twice verbally that his tardiness would result in a discharge. Excessive tardiness may be a basis for a finding of misconduct connected with work within the meaning of section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1997). See Sumlar v. Intermodal Servs., Inc., 429 So.2d 364, 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

An appellate court must affirm a referee’s finding of misconduct if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Scott v. Central Florida Tower Corp., 646 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). While Nguyen denied being tardy six times and being reprimanded for tardiness, such conflicts in evidence are for the fact-finder to determine. Because the general manager’s testimony supported a finding of misconduct, we affirm.

PARKER, A.C.J., and BLUE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

755 So. 2d 763, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 3746, 2000 WL 331903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nguyen-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack