RICHARD SITER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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.
The court affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits to a meat cutter who was discharged for misconduct after refusing to leave work when ordered by his supervisor.
An employee's refusal to obey a supervisor's direct order to leave the workplace constitutes misconduct disqualifying the employee from unemployment benefits.
[1] An employee's willful refusal to obey a direct order from a supervisor to leave the workplace constitutes misconduct disqualifying the employee from unemployment compensa…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSiter, a meat cutter at Publix Super Markets, got into a shouting match with assistant manager Avinger and was ordered to leave. Siter refused and con…
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 Supervisory Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard Siter [“Siter”] appeals a decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission [“the UAC”] affirming an appeals referee’s decision to deny Siter unemployment compensation due to misconduct. We affirm.
Siter was employed by Publix Super Markets, Inc. [“Publix”] as a meat cutter. He was discharged after getting into a dispute with an assistant meat department manager, Tim Avinger [“Avinger”]. It appears that a shouting match ensued and Avinger ordered Siter to leave. Siter refused to leave and continued to work through his shift as he had been scheduled. Publix fired Siter and opposed his claim for unemployment benefits on the ground that Siter had been discharged for misconduct. The Division of Unemployment Compensation of the Department of Labor and Unemployment Security disagreed and concluded that the employer failed to demonstrate misconduct. Publix appealed. The appeals referee found, and the UAC agreed, that because Siter had previously been warned by the store manager that he was to follow the instructions of his supervisor and because, on the date of the argument Siter refused to leave after he had been told to do so, Siter was guilty of misconduct. The referee explained that if Siter disagreed with the instruction to leave, he could have brought the matter to the attention of the store manager, but he could not ignore the instruction and remain at work. The conclusion that disobeying Avinger’s instruction to leave amounted to a willful violation of Siter’s obligation to his employer has support in the record and there is no basis to reverse.
AFFIRMED..
PETERSON, C.J., and HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Handy v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 799 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Siter v. Unemployment Appeals Comm., 695 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). SHARP, W., HARRIS and PETERSON, JJ., concur.…