MABEL EARP, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION AND BEST SUNDRIES, INC., RESPONDENTS
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.
Petitioner's discharge for violating employer purchasing procedures does not constitute "misconduct" under Florida's unemployment compensation statute because mere negligence or poor judgment, without willful intent or culpable negligence, is insufficient to forfeit benefits.
Mere negligence or poor judgment in violating employer purchasing procedures does not constitute "misconduct" under Fla. Stat. § 443.06 sufficient to deny unemployment benefits.
[1] Mere negligence or poor judgment in violating employer procedures does not constitute misconduct under the unemployment compensation statute absent evidence of willful in…
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 intelligencePetitioner was fired for repeatedly violating her employer's procedural standards for employee merchandise purchases, though other employees also viol…
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 Poor Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner was fired from her employment and sought unemployment benefits pursuant to Ch. 443, F.S.A. Her claim for such benefits was denied by respondents for the stated reason that she was guilty of “misconduct” within the meaning of 443.06, F.S.A. She seeks review by certiorari.
Petitioner’s employer had procedural standards for the purchase of merchandise by employees. The record reflects that petitioner repeatedly made purchases without complying with these procedures. Admittedly, although these procedures were violated by other employees, others did not violate them as frequently as did petitioner. Notwithstanding, the record is devoid of any evidence otherwise which would support a finding of a willful intent to steal or an evil design. Furthermore, there is no support for a conclusion that petitioner was guilty of such a degree of negligence as to manifest a culpability constituting the equivalent of such a willful intent or evil design. At most, she was guilty of mere negligence or poor judgment which will not suffice to constitute “misconduct” warranting forfeiture of unemployment benefits within the purview of 443.06, F.S.A.1
Accordingly, certiorari is granted and the order of the Industrial Relations Commission of the Florida Department of Commerce, reviewed hereby, is quashed.
PIERCE, A. C. J., concurs.
MANN, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sharole S. Shacklett v. State, 460 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…efits. Castor v. Department of Labor and Unemployment Security, 429 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Castillo v. Florida Department of Commerce, 253 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Earp v. Florida Department of Commerce Industrial Relations Commission, 241 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). As the Third District observed in Spaulding: The unemployment compensation statute is designed to cushion the effect of unemployment by a series of…
-
Klein v. CHR Assocs., Inc., 584 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ing unemployment benefits. See Daniels v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 531 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Langley v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 444 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Earp v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce Indus. Relations Comm’n, 241 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). Reversed.…
-
The Valparaiso Bank & Tr. Co. v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 381 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…ring up promptly an exact amount payment received by her’ in violation of rule of employer, although it may have demonstrated inadvertence, negligence or poor judgment, did not amount to [*1097] misconduct and Earp v. Florida Department of Commerce, 241 So. 2d 422 (Fla.2nd DCA 1970) holding that an employee who violated her employer’s procedural standards for purchase of merchandise, and was at most guilty of mere negligence or poor judgment, had not committed misconduct disqualifying her from benefits. The…
Authorities Cited
- Spaulding v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n & Onny Amon, Inc., 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)