RAPHAEL A. BARRETO, APPELLANT,
v.
TACO BELL CORP. AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Raphael Barreto, an assistant restaurant manager, was fired for changing his work shift without managerial approval. The court reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of benefits, finding that Barreto's conduct did not constitute misconduct because he had notified his employer of the change and was not explicitly prohibited from making it.
The court held that the claimant's actions did not constitute misconduct connected with work because he had notified his employer of the change, was not explicitly instructed that he could not make the change, and reasonably interpreted the manager's warning as applying only to future changes after the agreed-upon September 13 shift.
[1] An administrative agency may not reweigh evidence and substitute its findings for those of a referee.
[2] An appeals referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law may only be reversed if there is an absence of competent substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 improper for the Unemployment Appeals Commission to reweigh the evidence and substitute its findings for those of the referee.”
Establishes the standard of review and limits the appellate body's authority to overturn the referee's factual findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarreto, an assistant restaurant manager at Taco Bell, arranged with a subordinate employee to exchange shifts for September 10 and 13, 1994. When Bar…
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 Reweighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Raphael A. Barreto [the “claimant”], appeals a final order from the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission denying unemployment benefits. We agree with the claimant’s assertion that his actions did not constitute misconduct connected with work, and therefore reverse the order below.
The claimant was employed as an assistant restaurant manager, and had made arrangements with a subordinate employee to exchange shifts. The two agreed that on September 10,1994, the claimant would work the subordinate’s shift from noon to closing, instead of his regular shift from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The subordinate agreed to work the claimant’s schedule on September 13, 1994, from 4:00 p.m. to closing. The claimant agreed to come in later that night to train the subordinate on how to close the store.
On September 10,1994, when the claimant arrived at work at.noon, the restaurant manager issued a warning for failure to report on time. The manager told the claimant that company policy required employees to seek permission from the restaurant manager in order to change shifts. Specifically, the manager stated that he told the claimant: “[F]or future reference, if he ever needed to change Ms schedule again, he needed to make sure that I knew about it, and that I would — had okayed it before he did it_ I told him any further violations could result in termination.” On September 13, 1994, when the claimant arrived to work at approximately 10:30 p.m., he was fired by the manager for failing to get approval for the schedule change.
The appeals referee found that the claimant’s actions did not amount to misconduct because “the claimant had notified the employer of the change, and was not advised that he could not make that change.” However, the Unemployment Appeals Commission reversed the referee’s findings.
It is improper for the Unemployment Appeals Commission to reweigh the evidence and substitute its findings for those of the referee. Kan v. P.G. Cook Assocs., 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Forkey & Kirsch, P.A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law may only be reversed in the absence of competent substantial evidence. Smith v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Hines v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Sanchez v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 411 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Here, the record reflects the claimant was told on September 10, 1994, that any “future” schedule changes would result in termination, and that the claimant interpreted this statement as applying to changes occurring after the previously agreed-upon September 13, 1994 change. The claimant was never instructed that he was required to work Ms original schedule on September 13, 1994.
Thus the evidence was sufficient to support the appeals referee’s finding that the claimant did not intentionally disregard the employer’s interests and did not engage in misconduct within the meaning of section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993). See Copp v. 4126, Inc., 616 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission and remand for entry of an order in accordance with the referee’s findings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webb v. Rice, 693 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ly reweighed the evidence and reversed the referee’s decision. See Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 685 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Volk v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 673 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Barreto v. Taco Bell Corp., 661 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Livingston, 656 So. 2d at 500; Kan v. P.G. Cook Assoc., 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse the Commission’s order. Reversed and remanded. . • In addition to the incidents noted by the referee, the Commis…
-
Richardson v. Healthsouth Doctor's Hosp. Inc., 669 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…eweighed the evidence in denying benefits to the appellant, we reverse with directions to enter an order confirming the findings of fact and award of the appeals referee. Holloman v. City of Quincy, 664 So. 2d 310 (1995); Barreto v. Taco Bell Corp., 661 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Reversed and remanded with directions.…
-
Astete v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 116 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…the commission has the authority to reverse the findings and conclusions of the appeals referee, the commission may only do so where there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the referee’s decision”); accord Barreto v. Taco Bell Corp., 661 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Selvin G. Hines v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 455 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Smith v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & DGP Invs., Inc., 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Forkey & Kirsch, P. A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- The Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. OF the State OF Fla. v. Ondrizek, 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Sanchez v. Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 411 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Copp v. 4126, Inc., 616 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)