Case Name: Frances E. WEBB, Appellant, v. Douglas N. RICE, C.P.A., and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1997-05-21
Citations: 693 So. 2d 1109
Docket Number: No. 96-1565
Parties: Frances E. WEBB, Appellant, v. Douglas N. RICE, C.P.A., and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
Judges: Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 693
Pages: 1109–1114

Head Matter:
Frances E. WEBB, Appellant, v. Douglas N. RICE, C.P.A., and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
No. 96-1565.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 21, 1997.
Frances E. Webb, in pro. per.
William T. Moore, Tallahassee, for appel-lees.
Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
SHEVIN, Judge.
Frances Webb ["claimant"] appeals an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission reversing the decision of the appeals referee granting her unemployment benefits. We reverse.
Douglas Rice, C.P.A., employed claimant as a bookkeeper for approximately two years. Upon her discharge, she sought unemployment benefits. The claims examiner determined that claimant was entitled to benefits. In affirming the examiner's decision, the referee made the following pertinent findings of fact
The claimant had been instructed by the employer not to type file labels. The employer had a specific way in which it wanted the labels to be typed. The claimant believed that the employer wanted the secretary to type labels. The time came when there was no one to type the labels, and the claimant took it upon herself to do so.... The employer also believed that the claimant continued to use a puncher although she had been instructed not to do so. The claimant denied using the puncher again after she was told not to.... On or about September 13, 1995, the office manager had assigned a task to the claimant involving W-2 formats. The office manager believed the claimant was taking too long in completing the task. The claimant continued to work on the assignment and told the office manager that she was only one cent off. The officer manager approached the claimant to take the work away, and the claimant covered the work with her body.... The claimant believed the officer manager was upset because the office manager had had a verbal altercation on the telephone.... On September 15,1995, since the claimant was going on vacation, the owner asked the claimant about the status of the work. The owner was loud in his request and the claimant covered her ears, exclaiming, 'you are driving me crazy.' . While the claimant was on vacation, the employer considered the claimant's future employment status.... The claimant returned from her vacation ., and she was advised by the owner that her services were no longer needed.
The referee concluded, in pertinent part, that claimant did not use the hole puncher after the employer had forbidden such use, that the claimant typed file labels in order to expedite her work, and that she failed to give her supervisor her work when requested during "a difficult or critical moment." Although the referee concluded that claimant might have been a difficult employee at times and may have used poor judgment, he accepted her version of the events, and found that her use of a hole puncher, her typing of file labels, and her emotional reaction and failure to give her supervisor certain papers upon request, did not constitute misconduct.
The Commission rejected the referee's conclusion and found that claimant intentionally violated reasonable company directives. The Commission concluded that this behavior as a whole amounted to misconduct disqualifying claimant from entitlement of benefits. Claimant appealed.
A claimant is not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits if the employer discharges the claimant for misconduct connected with work. § 443.101(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1995). Section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1995), defines "misconduct" as
(a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee; or
(b) Carelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer.
Courts should narrowly construe the disqualification provisions, and should liberally construe the statute in favor of the claimant when determining whether a claimant's actions constitute misconduct in accordance with its remedial nature. See Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So.2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). In keeping with those principles, "misconduct [concerning company policies] usually involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings." Grossman v. J.C. Penney Co. 2071, 689 So.2d 1206, 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(quoting Fiedler v. Burdines, Inc., 654 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)); Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 648 So.2d 846, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), and cited cases. E.g., Bozzo v. Safelite Glass Corp., 654 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Zorrilla v. L. Luria & Son, Inc., 645 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994);
Although claimant's actions may have justified discharge from employment, the record does not show that such conduct justified denial of benefits. Grossman, 689 So.2d at 1208; Betancourt, 672 So.2d at 38; Cooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 670 So.2d 178, 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Livingston v. Tucker Constr. & Eng., Inc., 656 So.2d 499, 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Hummer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 573 So.2d 135, 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). A claimant's "mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, . inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed 'misconduct' within the meaning of the statute." Spaulding v. Florida Indus. Comm'n, 154 So.2d 334, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)(quoting Boynton Cab. Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941)).
In this case, the record supports the referee's decision that claimant's behavior does not constitute misconduct. The claimant testified that she typed the labels in order to complete her work because the labels were not done by the person assigned to do that work. Claimant's action shows a good-faith error in judgment based on claimant's misguided decision that she should type the labels in order to complete her work. In addition, claimant explained that she did not immediately accede to her supervisor's request to give her certain papers because she wished to complete the project. As to the incident involving her employer's request for a status report, she testified that her statement and actions were in response to the employer yelling at her. Her improper and emotional reactions in these two instances amount to nothing more than isolated instances of errors in judgment or "mere . unsatisfactory conduct." Id.; see, e.g., Velasquez v. Argus Int'l, 689 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Calvo v. Florida Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 672 So.2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Whitaker v. Pizza Hut, 502 So.2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Woskoff v. Desta Enter., Inc., 187 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Bulkan, 648 So.2d at 846.
The record, however, does not support the referee's conclusion that claimant did not use the hole puncher in violation of her employer's instruction. Claimant testified that she used the puncher in order to complete her work. That action, however, may not be characterized as the type of wanton, willful or substantial action sufficient to justify denial of benefits. See Smith v. Krugmanu-Kadi, 547 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 558 So.2d 20 (Fla.1990) and cited cases.
As the foregoing demonstrates, the referee's decision was supported by competent substantial evidence. The Commission improperly reweighed the evidence and reversed the referee's decision. See Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 685 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Volk v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 673 So.2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Barreto v. Taco Bell Corp., 661 So.2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Livingston, 656 So.2d at 500; Kan v. P.G. Cook Assoc., 566 So.2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse the Commission's order.
Reversed and remanded.
. • In addition to the incidents noted by the referee, the Commission also stated that claimant yelled at the employer when he requested a status report.