Case Name: Maurice A. PAUL, Appellant, v. JABIL CIRCUIT COMPANY and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-11-17
Citations: 627 So. 2d 545
Docket Number: No. 92-04549
Parties: Maurice A. PAUL, Appellant, v. JABIL CIRCUIT COMPANY and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
Judges: PATTERSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 627
Pages: 545–548

Head Matter:
Maurice A. PAUL, Appellant, v. JABIL CIRCUIT COMPANY and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
No. 92-04549.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov. 17, 1993.
George J.F. Werner, Clearwater, for appellant.
William T. Moore of Unemployment Appeals Com’n, Tallahassee, for appellee Com’n.

Opinion:
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Maurice A. Paul appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission that denied his claim for benefits on the theory that he was discharged due to misconduct. The Commission's order reversed the decision of the appeals referee. We reverse the Commission's order because competent substantial evidence established that Mr. Paul had fallen asleep on the job on only one brief occasion. The Commission was not authorized to override the referee's findings of fact on this issue and could not, as a conclusion of law, determine that this isolated occurrence was misconduct.
Jabil Circuit Company did not appear for the hearing before the appeals referee. As a result, the only evidence presented at that hearing was the testimony of Mr. Paul and the exhibits he introduced. That evidence established that Mr. Paul worked as a full-time security guard at Jabil Circuit Company in St. Petersburg. He worked on a rotating schedule, including both day and night shifts, in excess of forty hours each week. Twice each week, he worked twelve-hour shifts. His duties included monitoring closed circuit surveillance of the activities in Jabil's plant while sitting in a five- by seven-foot, windowless room. Mr. Paul was required to remain in this room for his entire shift, including meals, leaving only briefly to go to the restroom or to get a drink. On June 30, 1992, Mr. Paul "nodded-off ' for a few minutes and was discovered by his supervisor. This sin gle incident resulted in Mr. Paul's termination. Jabil's policy handbook for employees provided that sleeping on the job was a serious offense, but not one that would usually result in termination on the first occasion.
In reversing the decision of the appeals referee, the Commission did not disturb the findings of fact. It was primarily concerned with the referee's reliance on the policy manual as a basis to determine whether the incident constituted misconduct. The Commission decided that the referee should not have relied on that evidence.
We do not need to decide whether the referee was authorized to rely upon the policy manual as evidence in determining that this single sleeping episode was insufficient to establish misconduct. Without regard to the manual, it is well-established that an isolated act of negligence is rarely of such a degree "to manifest the culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design" sufficient to prove misconduct as defined in section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1991). See Seger v. Danner Constr. Co., 611 So.2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The evidence in this record does not support such a conclusion in this ease.
The appeals referee properly placed the burden of proving misconduct on the employer. Rogers v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 597 So.2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 463 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). If Jabil had proven that Mr. Paul intentionally took a nap on this one occasion or that he repeatedly fell asleep on the job, we might well agree with the dissent. Jabil failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, the Commission's decision is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the order of the appeals referee.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
PATTERSON, J., concurs.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., dissents with opinion.