Tacher v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

721 So. 2d 813, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15874, 1998 WL 874876
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 16, 1998·No. No. 97-4254·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

STEVENSON, Judge.

Tacher, a former manager at a Luria’s Department Store, challenges an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the appeals referee’s decision to disqualify him from receipt of unemployment benefits on the basis of “misconduct” after he was fired for failing, on two consecutive days, to conduct the “daily inspection” of the store’s inventory of diamonds, as required by the terms of his employment. Two days after Tacher failed to inspect the diamonds, the employer discovered a diamond solitaire had been stolen and replaced with a cubic zirco-nia. We reverse.

While Tacher may have exhibited poor judgement, we find that the record does not contain competent substantial evidence to support a finding of “misconduct” as the term is defined in section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1997). See Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So.2d 846, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(holding that a finding of misconduct under section 443.036(26) requires intentional repeated instances of misconduct or violations of explicit policies after the employee has received warnings). The statute should be narrowly construed in favor of the employee, and actions which justify discharge do not necessarily rise to the level of misconduct.

REVERSED.

TAYLOR, J., and BROWN, LUCY CHERNOW, Associate Judge, concur.

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

Tacher v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 721 So. 2d 813, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15874, 1998 WL 874876 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

721 So. 2d 813 (Tacher v. Unemployment Appeals Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reaves v. ANC Rental Corp.
871 So. 2d 1069 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)