Responsible Vendors, Inc. v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission ( 2015 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 19, 2015.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D14-2805
Lower Tribunal No. 14-3208
________________
Responsible Vendors, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.
Roetzel & Andress and Vijay G. Brijbasi (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.
Amanda L. Neff, Executive Senior Attorney, for appellee.
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.
SUAREZ, C.J.
Responsible Vendors, Inc. appeals from an order of the Reemployment
Assistance Appeals Commission affirming the award of unemployment benefits to
the former employee, Ava J. De Oliveira-Zappia. We affirm. See Frazier v. Home
Shopping Club LP, 784 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that
misbehavior serious enough to warrant an employee's dismissal is not necessarily
serious enough to sustain a forfeiture of unemployment compensation benefits). In
order to support a denial of benefits, “misconduct connected with work” is not
mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result
of an inability or incapacity, inadvertence, good faith errors in judgment or
discretion, or ordinary negligence in isolated instances. Id. Rather, the employer
must prove that the employee behaved intentionally or with a degree of
carelessness or negligence that manifests a wrongful intent or evil design, or
otherwise acted in a way that would constitute misconduct as defined in section
443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2015). Id. at 1192. See also Yost v. Unemployment
Appeals Comm'n, 848 So. 2d 1235, 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (same); Del Pino v.
Arrow Air, Inc., 920 So. 2d 772, 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (confirming that cases
dealing with isolated incidents, such as failure to follow policies or rules, are not
generally considered “misconduct” that would result in denial of unemployment
benefits); Arroyo v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 60 So. 3d 492, 494.
(Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“While we agree that on this record [Claimaint’s] termination
from her job was justified, we cannot agree that this conduct constitutes
misconduct that would disqualify her from receiving benefits.”).
Affirmed.