From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dorisma v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 13, 1989
544 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Summary

holding that appellant's refusal to work additional hours when the employer was faced with an extreme workplace situation constituted misconduct connected with work and, thus, disqualified the appellant from receiving unemployment compensation benefits

Summary of this case from Elec. Contr. v. Unemp. Appeals Com'n

Opinion

No. 88-2835.

June 13, 1989.

Appeal from the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission.

Miriam Harmatz, Maria L. Soto, for appellant.

John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and GERSTEN, JJ.


This is an appeal from an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, denying appellant unemployment benefits. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission determined that the appellant was properly discharged for misconduct. We agree and affirm.

Dorcius Dorisma, the appellant, contends that his refusal to work extra hours was not misconduct under Florida's Unemployment Compensation Law. § 443.036(25), Fla. Stat. (1987). The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, the appellee, asserts that the employer's request that appellant work extra hours was a reasonable request under the existing unusual workplace situation.

The appellant's employer requested that appellant, a manager, work extra hours. An unusual workplace situation existed where the employer's crew (labor) was already working overtime, and the employer clearly needed appellant's supervisory services. Appellant, for an unknown reason, refused to do extra work and the employer discharged him. We find that the employer's request of appellant to work extra hours was a reasonable request under the extreme workplace situation. Therefore, appellant's refusal to work additional hours under these circumstances constitutes misconduct under section 443.036(25), Florida Statutes (1987). See National Insurance Services, Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 495 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Kraft, Incorporated v. State, Unemployment Appeals Commission, 478 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Davis v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 425 So.2d 198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Dorisma v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jun 13, 1989
544 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

holding that appellant's refusal to work additional hours when the employer was faced with an extreme workplace situation constituted misconduct connected with work and, thus, disqualified the appellant from receiving unemployment compensation benefits

Summary of this case from Elec. Contr. v. Unemp. Appeals Com'n

holding that the appellant's refusal to work additional hours when the employer was faced with an extreme workplace situation constituted misconduct connected with work and, thus, disqualified the appellant from receiving unemployment compensation benefits

Summary of this case from Gulf Power Co. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
Case details for

Dorisma v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals

Case Details

Full title:DORCIUS DORISMA, APPELLANT, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jun 13, 1989

Citations

544 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Thurber v. Hillier Wanless, P.A

We agree with the Commission that the referee correctly applied the law to the facts. See Dorisma v. Florida…

Kelton v. Colonial Properties Serv

Therefore, we affirm the determination that Kelton is not eligible for unemployment benefits. See Dorisma v.…