DONNA C. SCERBO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1998-02-04
No. 97-0683
FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
704 So. 2d 1147 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1998)

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.


Holding

The court held that the Unemployment Appeals Commission improperly reweighed the evidence and substituted its findings for those of the referee when reversing an award of unemployment benefits.


Facts & Procedural History

A server was fired after discussing a low tip with a customer, exceeding restaurant policy. The referee awarded unemployment benefits, finding the ser…

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.


Opinion of the Court
KLEIN, Judge.

[*1148] KLEIN, Judge.

Appellant, a server at a restaurant, was fired after she questioned the amount of a tip and the customer complained to management. The customer had used a coupon which allowed two dinners which cost fifteen dollars each for the price of one, and left a two-dollar tip.

It was the policy of the restaurant for servers to be able to ask customers, where the tip is low, if they were unhappy with either the food or service, because management wanted to know. The restaurant fired her because she went beyond that policy and told the customer, after he responded that there was nothing wrong with the food or service, that a standard gratuity is fifteen percent.

The testimony before the referee reflected a conflict between the appellant, who testified that she had not been specifically warned about discussing the size of the tip with the customer, and the testimony of a restaurant employee who testified that she had been warned. The referee awarded unemployment benefits, resolving this conflict, based on the “overall candor and demeanor of the witnesses,” in favor of appellant.

The employer appealed this decision to the Unemployment Appeals Commission, and, after reciting some of the referee’s fact findings, but not that portion of the referee’s order which resolved the conflict in favor of claimant, the Commission reversed, concluding that appellant had deliberately disregarded her duties and was properly discharged for misconduct. We find that the Commission has improperly reweighed the evidence and substituted its findings for those of the referee. Forkey & Kirsch, P.A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Appellant is therefore entitled to benefits.

Reversed.

FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw