SUN MANUFACTURING CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
LINDA A. SOUVENIR, 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.
Pregnant employee's refusal to perform strenuous work contrary to medical instructions was justified and did not constitute disqualifying misconduct under unemployment law; affirmed.
A pregnant employee's refusal to perform strenuous work in violation of medical instructions constitutes justified conduct that does not disqualify her from unemployment benefits.
[1] An employee's refusal to perform assigned work is justified and does not constitute disqualifying misconduct under unemployment law when the work violates medical restric…
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 intelligenceA seven-months-pregnant employee received written medical instructions to avoid strenuous activity. On December 16, 1997, she refused an assigned task…
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 Medical Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The seven-months-pregnant employee had been given written medical instructions to avoid, among other things, strenuous activity. It is doubtful that the record establishes an outright refusal by the employee to perform her assigned duties. Assuming her conduct on December 16, 1997, amounted to a refusal, the employee’s testimony stands unrebutted that the assigned task required strenuous effort, causing physical pain. The refusal was therefore justified, and did not constitute disqualifying misconduct for purposes of the unemployment law. See Cargill, Inc. v. Hill, 503 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Goldstein v. Kalai, 480 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The Unemployment Appeals Commission correctly awarded benefits to the appellee employee.
The employee has moved for appellate attorney’s fees under paragraph 443.041(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). We deny the request because under the statute, counsel fees on appeal are awardable only “if the petition for review or appeal is initiated by the claimant and results in a decision awarding more benefits then did the decision from which appeal was taken.” Id. Because the present appeal was taken by the employer, not the employee/claimant, no appellate attorney's fees are awardable.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Etta M. Goldstein v. URY Kalai, M.D., P.A., 480 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Cargill, Inc. v. Hill, 503 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)