HIALEAH HOUSING V. GARCIA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2006 HIALEAH HOUSING AUTHORITY, ** Appellant, ** vs. ** MARTA GARCIA, ET AL., CASE NO. 3D05-1503 ** Appellees. ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 05-03651 ** Opinion filed June 7, 2006. An Appeal from the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission. Citrin & Walker and J. Frost Walker, III, for appellant. Manzini & Associates and Nicolas A. Manzini, for appellee Marta Garcia. Before LEVY and WELLS, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. WELLS, Judge. Employer, decision of Hialeah the Housing Unemployment Authority, Appeals appeals Commission from reversing a a determination by an appeals referee disqualifying an employee from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because she had engaged in misconduct connected with work. Fla. Stat. (2005). 1 See 443.036(29), We agree with the UAC that the facts as found by the appeals referee, while justifying termination of this employee, do not, as a matter of law, constitute misconduct connected with work so as to disqualify unemployment compensation benefits. Appeals Comm n, 884 So. 2d her from receiving See Johnson v. Unemployment 228, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (confirming that misconduct under this provision is not mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, poor performance as a consequence of incapacity, inadvertence, good faith errors in judgment instances 1 or discretion, and that or ordinary misbehavior negligence serious enough in to isolated warrant Section 443.036(29) in pertinent part provides: Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following, which may not be construed in pari material with each other: (a)Conduct demonstrating willful or wanton disregard of an employer s interests and found to be a deliberate violation or disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his or her employee; or (b)Carelessness or negligence to a degree or recurrence that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design or shows an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer s interests or of the employee s duties and obligations to his or her employer. 2 dismissal forfeiture is of not necessarily unemployment serious benefits); enough to Betancourt v. sustain Sun a Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (stating that [a]lthough same an conduct employee s does not actions may necessarily unemployment benefits ). Accordingly, we affirm. 3 justify preclude discharge, the entitlement to
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
