ANDREA B. FRIEDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, ET AL., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Culpability, Wrongful Intent, Or Evil Design cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which concluded, contrary to the appeals referee, that the claimant’s actions constituted misconduct connected with the work under section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993). The claimant’s conduct on this single occasion was not willful, wanton, or deliberate, nor was it of such a degree as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer. Moreover, unlike the conduct in appellee’s cited cases, it was not excessive, repeated, or following a warning, and it did not involve the claimant’s work or the employer’s interests.
REVERSED.
DELL, C.J., and WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maureace Davis v. State, 816 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…e, 795 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), review granted, 807 So. 2d 656 (Fla.2002); Stringer v. State, 783 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Taylor v. State, 771 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), review denied, 790 So. 2d 1108 (Fla.2001); Higgs v. State, 652 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Nonetheless, we are not required to decide whether the Faison test is applicable because, as in Perez, appellant’s conviction is sustainable even under the stringent Faison analysis. AFFIRMED. ERVIN, BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK,…