SILVER SPRINGS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AND WALTER L. CUNNINGHAM, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Silver Springs, Inc. appeals a Board of Review decision granting unemployment benefits to employee Walter Cunningham. The court reverses, holding that Cunningham was discharged for work-related misconduct—repeated disruptive incidents with female employees despite explicit warnings—and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Cunningham was guilty of work-related misconduct and is not entitled to unemployment benefits. Repeated instances of misbehavior contrary to the employer's interests constitute 'misconduct' under the statute, and Cunningham's disregard for employment standards and explicit warnings established such misconduct.
[1] Repeated instances of misbehavior contrary to the employer's interests constitute "misconduct" precluding unemployment compensation.
[2] Disregarding explicit warnings about conduct and continuing in a disruptive course of behavior constitutes work-related misconduct.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is well established that repeated instances of misbehavior, contrary to the interest of the employer, constitute "misconduct" precluding unemployment compensation.”
Establishes the legal standard for work-related misconduct in unemployment compensation cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCunningham was involved in at least three disruptive incidents with female employees. After the second episode, which was particularly flagrant, Cunni…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misconduct Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant/employer appeals a final order of the Board of Review, Division of Unemployment Compensation, affirming the grant of unemployment benefits to appel-lee/employee Cunningham. The primary issue is whether Cunningham was discharged from his employment for “misconduct connected with his work.” Section 443.06(1), Florida Statutes (1977). Aware as we are of the limited scope of appellate review in the case, we conclude nonetheless that appellant was guilty of work-related misconduct and is not entitled to unemployment benefits under the statute.
The record reveals that Cunningham had been involved in at least three disruptive incidents with female employees at the time of his discharge, and had been warned after the second episode, a particularly flagrant one, that another incident would result in his release. It is well established that repeated instances of misbehav ior, contrary to the interest of the employer, constitute “misconduct” precluding unemployment compensation. Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Florida Department of Commerce, 354 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Castillo v. Florida Department of Commerce, 253 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Here it is clear that appellant not only disregarded the standards of employment which the employer had plainly set down, but also disregarded warnings about his conduct and continued in the same disruptive course.
On this record, we cannot countenance the Board’s grant of benefits to Cunningham; the order is therefore reversed with directions to disqualify him from benefits and relieve appellant’s account of any charges in connection with the claim.
REVERSED.
MELVIN, J., and MITCHELL, HENRY CLAY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pagan v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 374 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…nt Security, 354 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Catholic Social Services v. Florida Department of Commerce, Board of Review, 365 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Silver Springs, Inc. v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 366 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); and Woodworth v. Department of Education, Office of Blind Services, 369 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).…
Authorities Cited
- Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 354 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Castillo v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 253 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)