Case Name: Principe O. ZORRILLA, Appellant, v. L. LURIA AND SON, INC. and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-11-23
Citations: 645 So. 2d 1078
Docket Number: No. 94-606
Parties: Principe O. ZORRILLA, Appellant, v. L. LURIA AND SON, INC. and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 645
Pages: 1078–1079

Head Matter:
Principe O. ZORRILLA, Appellant, v. L. LURIA AND SON, INC. and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
No. 94-606.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 23, 1994.
Principe O. Zorrilla, in pro. per.
John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for appellee Unemployment Appeals Com’n.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant was employed as a sales person in the jewelry department of a retail store. He was fired because he contumaciously refused to follow his supervisor's instruction that he wear a jacket on the job, even after he was repeatedly admonished to do so and was warned that he would be discharged if he did not. He now seeks review of a determination denying him unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that he was discharged for "misconduct." § 443.036(26), Fla.Stat. (1993). We affirm. In our view, Zorilla's consistent refusal to abide by his employer's appropriate instructions was properly found "in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer ha[d] the right to expect...." § 443.036(26)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993). See Rubido v. Brinks, Inc., 601 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (deliberate violation of company rules deemed misconduct); National Ins. Servs. Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 495 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (same). The employee's deliberate violation of the supervisor's repeated warnings clearly distinguishes his ease from many recent others in which we have held that a first-time, usually trivial violation of a company policy was not misconduct. See Tanav v. DHL, 639 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and cases cited.
Affirmed.