Tanav v. DHL

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tanav v. DHL

639 So. 2d 1053, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6903, 1994 WL 330084

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 1994

DocketNo. 94-1101

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 639 So. 2d 1053 (Tanav v. DHL) 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

Tanav v. DHL, 639 So. 2d 1053, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6903, 1994 WL 330084 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The appeals referee disqualified the appellant from unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that, while he had twice given notice to a supervisor of his impending week-long absence from work, he had not done so to the proper superior as provided by the employer’s work rules. The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed. As a matter of law, however, these actions do not amount to “misconduct” under section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993). Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); King v. Walgreen Co., 635 So.2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., 637 So.2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Woskoff v. Desta Enters., 187 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Spaulding v. Florida Indus. Comm’n, 154 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Accordingly, the order is reversed with directions to afford the appellant the benefits claimed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The appeals referee disqualified the appellant from unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that, while he had twice given notice to a supervisor of his impending week-long absence from work, he had not done so to the proper superior as provided by the employer’s work rules. The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed. As a matter of law, however, these actions do not amount to “misconduct” under section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993). Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); King v. Walgreen Co., 635 So.2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., 637 So.2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Woskoff v. Desta Enters., 187 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Spaulding v. Florida Indus. Comm’n, 154 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Accordingly, the order is reversed with directions to afford the appellant the benefits claimed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

639 So. 2d 1053, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6903, 1994 WL 330084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanav-v-dhl-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack