Roberson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roberson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

53 So. 3d 1217, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1578, 2011 WL 479983

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 2011

DocketNo. 1D10-2264

StatusPublished

This text of 53 So. 3d 1217 (Roberson 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

Roberson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 53 So. 3d 1217, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1578, 2011 WL 479983 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Angela Roberson appeals a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (“Commission”) deeming her ineligible for unemployment compensation. The order affirms an appeals referee’s determination that Ms. Roberson’s employer discharged her for misconduct connected with work, specifically, excessive unauthorized tardiness.

The record on appeal contains competent, substantial evidence to support the referee’s finding. See Grell v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 44 So.3d 201, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (appeals referee’s factual findings must be supported by competent, substantial evidence). Ms. Roberson argues that the referee erred in finding her tardiness unauthorized because the employer permitted her to make up the time. We have reviewed all the hearing testimony and all documents entered into evidence, and we find nothing in the record sustaining Ms. Roberson’s argument. She testified she interpreted being allowed to make up the time to mean the tardiness was excused. But she also testified neither her supervisor nor her branch manager ever told her she was excused, and she presented no written communication from the employer to that effect or any company policy stating tardiness could be excused by making up the lost time.

Section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2009), defines misconduct sufficient to disqualify someone unemployment benefits.

(29) “Misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, the following, which may not be construed in pari materia with each other:

(a) Conduct demonstrating willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s inter[1218]*1218ests and found to be a deliberate violation or disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his or her employee; or

(b) Carelessness or negligence to a degree or recurrence that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or shows an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties or obligations to his or her employer.

Because the record supports the referee’s findings, and because excessive unauthorized tardiness falls within the definition of misconduct connected with work, see e.g., Velazquez v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 916 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), Sumlar v. Intermodal Services, Inc., 429 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), we affirm the Commission’s final order.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Angela Roberson appeals a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (“Commission”) deeming her ineligible for unemployment compensation. The order affirms an appeals referee’s determination that Ms. Roberson’s employer discharged her for misconduct connected with work, specifically, excessive unauthorized tardiness.

The record on appeal contains competent, substantial evidence to support the referee’s finding. See Grell v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 44 So.3d 201, 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (appeals referee’s factual findings must be supported by competent, substantial evidence). Ms. Roberson argues that the referee erred in finding her tardiness unauthorized because the employer permitted her to make up the time. We have reviewed all the hearing testimony and all documents entered into evidence, and we find nothing in the record sustaining Ms. Roberson’s argument. She testified she interpreted being allowed to make up the time to mean the tardiness was excused. But she also testified neither her supervisor nor her branch manager ever told her she was excused, and she presented no written communication from the employer to that effect or any company policy stating tardiness could be excused by making up the lost time.

Section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2009), defines misconduct sufficient to disqualify someone unemployment benefits.

(29) “Misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, the following, which may not be construed in pari materia with each other:

(a) Conduct demonstrating willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s inter[1218]*1218ests and found to be a deliberate violation or disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his or her employee; or

(b) Carelessness or negligence to a degree or recurrence that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or shows an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties or obligations to his or her employer.

Because the record supports the referee’s findings, and because excessive unauthorized tardiness falls within the definition of misconduct connected with work, see e.g., Velazquez v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 916 So.2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), Sumlar v. Intermodal Services, Inc., 429 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), we affirm the Commission’s final order.

AFFIRMED.

WEBSTER, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 So. 3d 1217, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 1578, 2011 WL 479983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberson-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack