Miami Employment Lawyer Blog

I am happy to report that last week we won an appeal to the Florida Third District Court of Appeals in which we appealed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of unemployment benefits to our client because they claimed that her conduct in violating company policy was "willful misconduct" under the unemployment law and denied her unemployment benefits. Attached is a copy of the Decision of the Third District Court of Appeals.

In the case, our client, who had worked for Carnival Cruise Lines for approximately 15 years, during which time she had no discipline or reprimands, knowingly violated a company policy that prohibited the use of the corporate credit card for personal expenses. However, while she used the corporate credit card for personal expenses, she promptly reimbursed the company for all of the charges. The Unemployment Appeals Referee held that such conduct constituted "willful misconduct" and denied unemployment benefits. The Unemployment Appeals Commission (now known as the Department of Economic Opportunity) affirmed the Decision of the Appeals Referee denying benefits. We appealed the Decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission based on the general rule under the Florida unemployment law that isolated infractions of company policy with no prior warnings usually amount to no more than poor judgment rather than misconduct within the meaning of the unemployment law.

Under well-established law, the unemployment statute is to be liberally interpreted in favor of a claimant, and its disqualifying provisions are to be construed narrowly in determining whether the employee's actions support the denial of benefits. In fact, even a deliberate violation of company policy may not constitute "misconduct" under the statute where the employee was unaware that the conduct could lead to termination of her employment. Indeed, "misconduct" under the unemployment law usually involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings.

In reversing the decision of the Unemployment Appeals Commission, the Third District Court of Appeals stated that "[A] review of the record demonstrates that the incident for which [the Claimant] was discharged from employment, after an otherwise unblemished fifteen-year career with the employer, amounted to an 'exercise of poor judgment [that] does not amount to misconduct sufficient to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits.'"

Continue reading "Florida Court of Appeals Reverses Unemployment Appeals Commission Decision that Denied Unemployment Benefits to Employee for Isolated Violations of Company Policy" »

I am very happy to report that we prevailed last week on an unemployment compensation appeal for a client that was denied unemployment benefits because of a violation of company policy. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal, which sits in Miami, Florida, decided that a violation of company policy, which also was a violation of federal regulations, was not sufficient to deny a fourteen-year employee unemployment compensation benefits. Attached to this link is the full Opinion of the Court in Hernandez v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Docket No. 3D09-3326 (Fla. 3d DCA July 2010).

In that case, Ms. Hernandez, the employee, worked as a customer account specialist for American General Finance, one of the largest loan companies in the country. Sometime prior to her discharge, she processed a loan for a customer. When the customer took out the loan, he was with a third party and according to the evidence, the customer and the third party were very close friends. Subsequently, the third party came in and requested an increase in the amount of loan, which Ms. Hernandez duly processed. However, she failed to obtain the approval of the customer or the customer's signature on any of the loan increase papers. The customer found out about it and when he complained, that's when Ms. Hernandez was fired. The company claimed that it was a violation of company policy and a violation of federal regulations. However, Ms. Hernandez had never been given a reprimand or warning for this or any other type of conduct during her entire 14-year tenure with the company. Nevertheless, the Appeals Referee determined that this was misconduct as defined in the unemployment law and denied unemployment compensation benefits. The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed.

At oral argument before a panel of three judges of the Third District Court of Appeal, we argued that this was an isolated incident of a lapse of judgment that should not rise to the level of being "misconduct" as defined by the unemployment law. The Unemployment Appeals Commission ("UAC") argued that the conduct was so egregious that it was tantamount to a willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interests. The UAC cited several opinions for this proposition, such as the case of Sears & Roebuck v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 463 So.2 465, (Fla. 2d 1985), where an employee was denied unemployment benefits because of a clear violation of company policy, which also included a violation of law. However, I argued to the judges that the cases cited by the UAC involved situations where the employee garnered a benefit from the conduct. In the case before the Court, the employee received no benefit whatsoever. As such, it was a simple error in judgment. The Court agreed and found that one incident of poor judgment exercised by Ms. Hernandez over a fourteen-year career with the employer, does not rise to the level of being misconduct as defined by the unemployment law.

Continue reading "Florida District Court of Appeal Holds That Violation of Company Policy Not Sufficient to Deny Unemployment Compensation Benefits" »