121 So. 3d 1181
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cesar appeals a final order of the Commission reversing an appeals referee’s decision qualifying her for unemployment benefits.
- The Commission reversed based on its own factual findings, including that Cesar knew or should have known of a policy prohibiting personal calls from work phones.
- The appeals referee found the employer failed to prove misconduct and that Cesar was unaware of the policy.
- The telephonic hearing produced findings that Cesar made some personal calls but continued to perform tasks, leading to her later discharge for misuse of company property.
- The court holds the Commission improperly substituted its findings for the referee’s and relied on facts not established at the hearing.
- The court reverses and remands with directions to reinstate the appeals referee’s decision awarding benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Commission substitute its own findings for the referee’s? | Cesar argues the Commission improperly reweighed facts. | Commission argues its review permits legality of its conclusions. | Yes; the Commission cannot substitute findings; reversal and remand required. |
| Did Cesar knowingly violate the policy on personal calls? | Cesar was unaware of the policy. | Cesar should have known of the policy prohibiting personal calls. | Reversed; referee’s finding of unawareness should stand; verdict remanded. |
| Was there evidence of disqualifying misconduct connected with work? | Personal calls on work phone did not prove misconduct. | Policy violation constitutes misconduct. | Reversed; improper reliance on undisclosed charges and policy awareness; benefits awarded. |
| Does the Commission’s review adhere to standard of review prohibiting reweighing of evidence? | Substitution of findings violates standard of review. | Review allows some reweighing for error correction. | Reversed; standard requires respecting referee findings supported by substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- SKF Mgmt. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 664 So.2d 345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (burden on employer to prove misconduct)
- Gunther v. Barnett Banks, Inc., 598 So.2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (employer bears misconduct burden)
- Sheriff of Monroe County v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 490 So.2d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (misconduct burden on employer)
- Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 664 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (employer burden and evidentiary standards)
- Lyster v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 826 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (referee findings favored when supported by substantial evidence)
- Tedder v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 697 So.2d 900 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (reweighing evidence cloaked as legal conclusion)
- Howell & O’Neal v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 934 So.2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (standard of review; cannot substitute referee’s findings)
- Peace River Distrib., Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 80 So.3d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (agency may not reweigh or rely on new facts)
- His Kids Daycare v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 904 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (cannot modify referee’s findings with new facts)