Prior Warnings Normally Required to Affirm Termination of Employee

In Hernandez v. American General Finance and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Case No. 3d-09-3326 (July 7, 2010), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of unemployment benefits based on what it described as an "isolated incident" of "poor judgment."

The 14-year employee was terminated for not seeking proper corporate authorization before approving a $2000 increase to a loan.  The company had not given the employee any warnings regarding this behavior and the appellate court deemed it an isolated incident.  The appellate court reiterated that there has been a distinction drawn between (1) an isolated incidence of poor judgment and (2) misconduct that demonstrates "willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests."  The court cited the case of Grossman v. JC Penney Co 2071, 689 So. 2d 1206, 1207-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), which reversed a denial of unemployment benefits because the employee was not aware that the subject action caused her employer any concern until she was discharged and that the act itself did not reflect a substantial disregard of her employer's interest.

The court also cited Riveras v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 884 So. 2d 1143, 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), which held that misconduct "usually involves repeated violations of explicit policies after several warnings" and that was "in keeping with the explicit philosophy behind the unemployment compensation law."

Thus, the court found that the Unemployment Appeals Commission abused its discretion in denying unemployment benefits to Ms. Hernandez.

This opinion helps support a terminated employee's argument that several warning are usually required if the acts upon which the company fires the employee do not demonstrate a "substantial disregard of her employer's interests or manifest the 'wrongful intent' or 'evil design' described in section 443.036(29)."