SANFORD E. HARPER, II, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND HIMES SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, INC., 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.
Harper was fired from his part-time maintenance job at a restaurant after refusing to pay for a mistaken order he made while temporarily helping as a waiter. The court reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of benefits, holding that the employer failed to establish misconduct connected with his maintenance duties.
The court reversed, holding that the record fails to support a finding of misconduct connected with Harper's maintenance job. The employer's complaint about order-writing related to Harper's waiter position was irrelevant since he was no longer working as a waiter when fired, and the record showed no complaints about his maintenance work performance.
[1] An employee discharged for misconduct connected with work is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.
[2] A finding that an employer discharged an employee for misconduct must be supported by substantial, competent evidence in the record.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a person is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits if he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with work”
States the statutory standard under Florida Statutes 443.101 for disqualification from benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarper worked as a waiter and performed daily maintenance duties at Himes Seafood Restaurant. When he decided to return to school, he agreed to resign…
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 Standard Of Review For Administrative Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s order denying unemployment compensation benefits. He argues that the record fails to support the appeals referee’s finding that he was fired from his job at Himes Seafood Restaurant for misconduct connected with work. We reverse.
The appellant worked as a waiter and also performed some daily maintenance duties at the restaurant before his shift started. When the appellant decided to return to school, he told his employer that he would like to resign from his job waiting on tables but that he wished to continue his duties as a maintenance person on a" part-time basis. His employer agreed, but asked the appellant to continue to wait on tables for an extra week to help during a busy holiday. During his last few days as a waiter, the appellant and the restaurant management got into a dispute about a mistaken order. When the appellant refused to pay for the order, he was fired from his maintenance job. The employer maintained that in recent months the appellant had continually made mistakes on orders because he would not write them down.
Under section 443.101, Florida Statutes (1991), a person is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits if he or she has been discharged for misconduct connected with work. The appellant’s failure to follow the restaurant’s policy of writing down orders may have been a valid reason for the appellant to be fired from his job as a waiter; however, the issue is irrelevant since the appellant was no longer a waiter when he was fired. The record does not show that the employer had any complaint with the appellant’s performance as a maintenance person.
An appellate court should not disturb an administrative agency’s decision if it is supported by competent substantial evidence. Maynard, v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 609 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In this case, the record fails to support a finding that the appellant’s actions constituted misconduct connected with his maintenance job. Therefore, we reverse the UAC’s denial of unemployment compensation benefits and reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
HALL, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Maynard v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Neighborhood Variety Stores, Inc., 609 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)