Florida Unemployment Benefits Available to the Justly Terminated

Let's look at the level of misconduct required to be denied unemployment benefits.

Employees justly terminated from their jobs may nevertheless be entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Although an employee's actions may justify discharge, the same conduct does not necessarily preclude entitlement to unemployment benefits. Betancourt v. Sun Bank Miami, N.A., 672 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1996).

For Unemployment Compensation benefits to be denied, an employee's behavior must rise to the level of "misconduct," defined as acting willfully, wantonly, or be in substantial disregard of the employer's interest. See §§ 443.036(29), and 443.101, Fla. Stat.

An isolated incident of poor judgment does not rise to that level. See McKnight v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 713 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Betancourt, Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 648 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Smith v. Krugman-Kadi, 547 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 558 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1990); and Erber v. Federal Express Corp., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

In Florida, an isolated incident or, sadly, no incident at all may lead to the lawful termination of an employee, as Florida is an at-will state.

The above reasons, however, do not constitute grounds to prevent a terminated employee from receiving Unemployment Compensation benefits.

Terminated Worker entitled to UC Benefits despite Resignation

If an employee resigns as of a specific date and then is terminated by the company prior to the resignation date, is he entitled to unemployment benefits? The First District Court of Appeal answered that issue in Porter v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 1 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

In the case, Ms. Porter worked full-time as a cook for a child center from May 23, 2007 through August 7, 2007. On July 27, 2007, she submitted her resignation letter which was to become effective on August 10, 2007, giving her employer two weeks' notice. The employer immediately placed an ad for her position, began interviewing potential replacements, and on August 6, 2007, hired a replacement who was able to start immediately. On August 7, 2007, the employer told Porter to “leave.”

The issue before the court was whether Porter voluntarily quit work. If so, she would not have been entitled to unemployment benefits.

The appellate court reviewed case law from other states noting that two lines of decisions on this issue existed: The first line holds an employee who is terminated prior to the effective date of her resignation has never left work voluntarily and therefore cannot be disqualified from receipt of benefits on that basis, even for the period following the employee’s intended date of departure. The second line holds that unemployment compensation benefits must be limited to the period between the date of an employee’s discharge and the effective date of his resignation.

The First DCA sided with the first line of cases. The opinion succinctly states:

We conclude that because appellant never left work voluntarily but was instead discharged from employment on August 7, 2007 (for reasons not related to misconduct connected with her work), she is entitled to recover unemployment compensation benefits under section 443.101(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007), notwithstanding the offer she had made to resign effective August 10, 2007.

This decision which clearly helps employees who are let go prior to their stated resignation dates fails to provide any support for its holding; however, it is now the law within the jurisdiction of the First District Court of Appeal. In these difficult times, any help for unemployed workers is welcomed.

The case, however, is on review by the Florida Supreme Court, (Docket number SC09-451) which has taken jurisdiction to review the First DCA's opinion. While the Unemployment Appeals Commission has filed its brief, Ms. Porter has not filed any response. Thus, the Florida Supreme Court is reviewing the case based solely on the Unemployment Appeals Commission's arguments. In this scenario, it is highly likely that the First DCA's opinion (which has little to no case law support) may be overturned. Until the Florida Supreme Court issues its decision, however, the First DCA's opinion remains valid and binding.