Skip to main content

Unemployment Appeals Referee Awards Benefits to Employee Allegedly Fired for Misconduct

Under Florida law an employee who is discharged will qualify for unemployment benefits unless the discharge was because of the employee's "willful misconduct."  The definition of misconduct was substantially broadened by the Florida legislature in 2014, see §443.036(29), Florida Statutes.  Nonetheless the burden remains on the employer to show it fired the employee because of a "deliberate violation or disregard of the reasonable standards of behavior which the employer expects." In a recent the claimant had a panic attack at work.  She testified that she temporarily blacked out and could not recall her actions.  Co-workers later told her about her erratic behavior during the panic attack, for which the employer sent her home and, two weeks later, fired the claimant.


The Florida Reemployment Assistance Program initially found that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation because of her misconduct.  She appealed this determination.  Following an evidentiary hearing the referee reversed the decision because "the behavior of the claimant, as described by the claimant, did not meet the statutory definition of misconduct.  The claimant is thus not subject to disqualification."

The decision was entered on October 10, 2016, by the Office of Appeals, Reemployment Assistance Program, Department of Economic Opportunity.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Federal Employee's Request for Reasonable Accommodation is a Protected Activity - Agency May Not Retaliate

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq., protects a federal worker from discrimination because he or she has a disability.  The Act requires agencies to provide reasonable accommodation to an individual's physical or mental disabilities unless the agency can prove that the requested accommodation will create an undue hardship.  In this regard the Act incorporates the protections afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which includes more recent and more detailed requirements.  Accommodation may involve the removal of physical barriers.  It may also include job restructuring and part-time or modified work schedules.  Thus, a flexible work schedule may qualify as a reasonable accommodation. Both laws expressly prohibit employers from taking retaliatory actions against employees who oppose acts or practices which are made unlawful, for making charges and/or for participating in related investigations or proceedings.  It is also unlawful to c
Post a Comment
Read more

Circumstantial Evidence of Age and Race Discrimination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the employer in a case alleging age and race discrimination, Kilgore v. Trussville Development, LLC dab Hilton Garden, Inc., 2016 U.S.app. LEXIS 5464; 646 Fed. Apps. 765 (11th Cir. 2016).  The text of the decision can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3188580/valarie-kay-kilgore-v-trussville-development-llc/ Ms. Kilgore presented circumstantial evidence which supported an inference that the employer’s claim that she was fired for being rude to guests was a pretext.  She presented evidence that she was replaced by two newly hired employees who were younger and African-American - Ms. Kilgore was a Caucasian woman in her sixties.  In addition, her superiors had made derogatory statements about her age (that she was “a stubborn old woman” and “too old”) and also about her race (that she was “the wrong color.”  Such comments are circumstantial evidence of d
Post a Comment
Read more

Indirect Proof of Discrimination

Title VII cases often are resolved without a trial.  Whether the District Court properly entered summary judgment for the employer is the subject of many Eleventh Circuit appeals.  A significant decision, Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) held that a triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents "a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decision maker."  And it is well-settled that if a plaintiff presents a prima facie case together with evidence tending to discredit the employer's proffered reasons for the alleged discriminatory action the trier of fact may reasonably conclude that the employer intentionally discriminated.  See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) in which the U.S. Supreme Court so held, stating specifically that no additional evidence of discrimination is needed to create a
Post a Comment
Read more