Case Name: Josephine D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, et al., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1996-10-04
Citations: 680 So. 2d 1073
Docket Number: No. 95-1729
Parties: Josephine D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, et al., Appellee.
Judges: GOSHORN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 680
Pages: 1073–1076

Head Matter:
Josephine D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, et al., Appellee.
No. 95-1729.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct. 4, 1996.
Josephine D. Johnson, Winter Garden, pro se.
John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
HARRIS, Judge.
While we agree that dishonesty is and should be grounds for dismissal and denial of benefits, there are some cases — and this is one of them — when the actor's intent simply is not that clear and we must rely on the factfinder's determination as to whether the misrepresentation was willful.
These are the facts determined by the hearing officer and adopted by the Board in its brief:
The Claimant applied for work in 1989 with this employer. She was hired, and continued to work until January 24, 1995. In August 1994, the claimant submitted her fingerprints pursuant to an application for a substitute position. She knew she had to submit to the fingerprint process. After she submitted her fingerprints, the claimant was later asked about a conviction in 1980 which turned up during the fingerprint and investigation process.
The claimant was involved in an incident on September 19[80]. She was charged with aggravated assault, and charged with affray over an incident that stemmed from [a] theft that involved her blind father as perpetrated by a neighbor. The aggravated assault charge was not prosecuted, but the claimant later pled nolo contendere in a court hearing that followed. She was represented by a public defender when she pled nolo contendere and was required to pay a fine of $88.75.
When she initially applied for employment in 1989 with this employer, her application required her to disclose criminal offenses or pending criminal offenses. The question of the application read as: "Have you ever been convicted or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation or are there any criminal charges now pending against you other than a minor traffic violation?" The claimant marked the question, "No," believing that she had never been convicted of a criminal offense (Emphasis added.) Because of the reports that were generated from the fingerprint process, the claimant was later asked by the employer to provide statements on this matter. She complied. She was then told by written letter that she was being recommended for termination for falsifying her application. She was informed that she could appeal the recommendation, and she did. She was unsuccessful in appealing the recommendation, and was discharged on January 24,1995, for failing to disclose her arrest in 1980, and plea of nolo contendere to the affray charge, Florida Statute Section 870.01. The claimant believed that her plea in court did not amount to a conviction as she was not "imprisoned" because of her plea. (Emphasis added.)
The foregoing demonstrates that the hearing officer did not believe that the claimant intentionally falsified her employment application. For that reason, the hearing officer determined that the claimant was entitled to benefits. Even though the U.A.C. rejected this finding in reversing the hearing officer, the claimant's testimony in the record is sufficient support for this finding of fact by the hearing officer and binds the Commission on review.
A similar issue was before the court in Godwin v. Department of Professional Regulation, 461 So.2d 226, 227-228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), a license revocation case. In that ease, the contractor who had failed to disclose previous judgments on his application testified that he did not believe that the information sought pertained to a former partnership. The hearing officer disagreed and found a deliberate falsification. The court held:
Being a state of mind, intent is usually a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. The trier of fact has the opportunity to observe the witness. From that observation, the trier of fact may determine the believability of that witness and the weight to be given his testimony. The demeanor of the witness, his frankness, or lack of frankness, his intelligence, his interest in the outcome of the case, and the reasonableness of the testimony presented, in the light of all the evidence in the case, are but a few of those factors which may play a part in making that determination.
Given the factfinder's superior vantage point in determining intent, it is appropriate in the context of administrative law that the reviewing court be limited to determining whether a finding of intent is supported by competent substantial evidence.
If a finding of intent to misrepresent is appropriately left to the factfinder, so also should the finding of no such intent. In our case, we have a hearing officer who made the determination that the claimant was truthful in her denial of intentionally misrepresenting her criminal background on her job application. There is record support for this finding. First, of course, is the claimant's testimony. Second, her job performance over the six years that she worked for the Board vouches for her credibility because she was being considered for a better position when the misstatement on the application was discovered. Third, the misdemeanor left off claimant's application, affray, does not itself involve an issue of dishonesty or untruthfulness. Instead, it merely shows that the claimant (some sixteen years earlier) suffered the very human frailty of overreacting to the abuse of her blind father. The fact that she has had no other legal problems within the past sixteen years also speaks to her character and veracity.
REVERSED for reinstatement of benefits.
GOSHORN, J., concurs.
THOMPSON, J., dissents, with opinion.