Robles v. Victoria's Secret Store, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robles v. Victoria's Secret Store, Inc.

900 So. 2d 600, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 989, 2005 WL 236441

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 2, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-801

StatusPublished

This text of 900 So. 2d 600 (Robles v. Victoria's Secret Store, 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

Robles v. Victoria's Secret Store, Inc., 900 So. 2d 600, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 989, 2005 WL 236441 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinions

WELLS, Judge.

We affirm the final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which concluded that the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with her employment. See Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 695 So.2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(concluding that unemployment compensation claimant engaged in misconduct, so as to be disqualified from receiving benefits, when he altered his attendance records to show that he had been at work when he had not); Ford v. Southeast Atlantic Corp., 588 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(concluding that employee was properly denied benefits and observing “repeated' acts in violation of company policy are not necessary to - constitute misconduct within the meaning of Chapter 443”); Alles v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, 423 So.2d 624, 625-26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)(eiting to Chapter 120 and observing “[t]he agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative rules in the recommended order, but may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which ■ the findings ' were based did not comply with essential requirements of law”).

Affirmed.

SHEPHERD, J., concurs.

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

WELLS, Judge.

We affirm the final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which concluded that the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with her employment. See Brooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 695 So.2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(concluding that unemployment compensation claimant engaged in misconduct, so as to be disqualified from receiving benefits, when he altered his attendance records to show that he had been at work when he had not); Ford v. Southeast Atlantic Corp., 588 So.2d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(concluding that employee was properly denied benefits and observing “repeated' acts in violation of company policy are not necessary to - constitute misconduct within the meaning of Chapter 443”); Alles v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, 423 So.2d 624, 625-26 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)(eiting to Chapter 120 and observing “[t]he agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative rules in the recommended order, but may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which ■ the findings ' were based did not comply with essential requirements of law”).

Affirmed.

SHEPHERD, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

900 So. 2d 600, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 989, 2005 WL 236441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robles-v-victorias-secret-store-inc-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack