PHILLIP COHEN, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, ET AL., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misconduct Connected With Work cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The claimant, Phillip Cohen, appeals from a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission disqualifying him from receiving benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected with work. After carefully reviewing the appeals referee’s findings of fact, we conclude that the conduct complained of was, at most, an isolated incident of poor judgment that did not rise to a level of “misconduct,” as the claimant was not acting willfully, wantonly, or in substantial disregard of the employer’s interest. See §§ 443.036(29), 443.101, Fla. Stat. (2001); McKnight v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 713 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 Solid 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Smith v. Krugman-Kadi, 547 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 558 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1990); Erber v. Federal Express Corp., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an award of unemployment benefits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ASH v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 872 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…eals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Smith v. Krugmam-Kadi, 547 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 558 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1990); Erber v. Federal Express Corp., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).” Cohen v. Unemplmt. App. Comm’n, 868 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). REVERSED AND REMANDED. WEBSTER and BENTON, JJ., concur; ALLEN, J., concurs in result only. . The findings of fact of the appeals referee are supported by competent, substantial evidence except that the referee's finding that a…
-
Debi Thorkelson v. NY Pizza & Pasta Inc., 956 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…gment that did not rise to a level of ‘misconduct,’ as the claimant was not acting willfully, wantonly, or in substantial disregard of the employer’s interest. See §§ 443.036(29), 443.101, Fla. Stat.’ ”) (quoting Cohen v. Fla. Unemplmt. App. Comm’n, 868 So. 2d 664, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)); compare also McCarty, 878 So. 2d at 435 (“While an isolated incident can be disqualifying, if sufficiently egregious, the single-incident cases ... involve unexcused, unequivocal, and deliberate disobedience. The present ca…
-
White v. State, 873 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…t, reflected a 44.4 month sentence. We agreed with Mr. White, but affirmed his plenary appeal because the scoresheet error was not brought to the trial court’s attention either at sentencing or pursuant to a Rule 3.800(b) motion. See White v. State, 868 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Mr. White thereafter sought Rule 3.800(a) postconviction relief. The trial court considered his motion but declined to grant relief for the following reason: The Court has considered the motion, the opinion of the Fifth Dist…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Eilon Krugman-Kadi & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 547 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Ira A. Erber v. Fed. Express Corp. & Dep't of Labor & Unemployment Sec., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Ellington v. State, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Bulkan v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Terry Ford Co., 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- McKNIGHT v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 713 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)