Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 665 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 665 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“an administrative agency's action should be sustained on appeal if based upon any acceptable view of the evidence”
21 citation events (17 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bogardus v. JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COM'N (fladistctapp, 2006-11-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bogardus v. JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COM'N
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
an administrative agency's action should be sustained on appeal if based upon any acceptable view of the evidence
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spangle v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
(See, e.g., Jim's Auto Body v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles (2008) 285 Conn. 794 [ 942 A.2d 305, 315, 318 ] [construing statutory phrase "`customers of dealers and repairers'" (italics omitted) consistent with common usage to mean one who "furnishes payment for the repair of a vehicle"]; Graebel/Houston Movers, Inc. v. Chastain (Tex.Ct.App. 2000) 26 S.W.3d 24, 29 [approving class definition of "customers" as those "`who engaged and paid, or caused to be paid, charges for storage insurance or insurance for storage'"]; Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Com'n (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1996) 665 So.2d 3…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Leedham v. STATE UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'N
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
See Gongaware, 882 So.2d at 454 (providing that "[a]n employee's refusal to perform an employer's valid and reasonable work order amounts to misconduct."); Sabolia v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 747 So.2d 452, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (concluding that the willful and intentional refusal to follow the superior's valid and reasonable work order was sufficient to warrant disqualification for benefits); Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals *478 Comm'n, 665 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (stating that "where an employee intentionally violates company policy . . . or ignores standards of behavior w…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Peace Lutheran Church v. State, Unemployment Appeals Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Moreover, the Referee’s conclusion is a reasonable application of the pertinent laws to the facts of the case.” We hold that the U.A.C. erred in granting Comanic’s claim for benefits where the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence showing that the Church is a liable employer required to pay unemployment benefits. “[A]n administrative agency’s action should be sustained on appeal if based upon any acceptable view of the evidence.” Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 665 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bejarano v. State, Department of Education, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
The DOE argues that Bejara-no failed to comply with this psychiatric evaluation requirement; however, for purposes of effectuating a timely resolution of this matter, the DOE has chosen to concede on appeal that there is a factual dispute as to whether Bejarano complied with this requirement in a satisfactory manner. “[A]n administrative agency’s action should be sustained on appeal if based upon any acceptable view of the evidence.” Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 665 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Parks v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Fink v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 665 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" Sunshine Guardrail Corp. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 665 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Garcia v. Viking Life-Saving Equip.
cited Cited "see" Rollins v. Bay HR, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fink v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 665 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" Aircraft Service International v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fink v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 665 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" Hernandez v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 665 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" Bouman v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 665 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" Pownall v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Fink v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 665 So.2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Augustin v. STATE UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Fink v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 665 So.2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
George FINK, Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Home Depot USA Inc., Appellee.
94-1815.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan 3, 1996.
665 So. 2d 373
Per Curiam.
Cited by 20 opinions  |  Published

Mary Anne Robertson, Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for Appellee-UAC.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant, George Fink, appeals from a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) affirming the decision of the appeals referee which denied him entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits. We affirm because there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of misconduct arising from a violation of the employer's written policy.

Claimant filed for unemployment benefits against his employer, Home Depot USA, Inc. (Home Depot), following his discharge due to an alleged violation of Home Depot's conflicts of interest policy. A claims adjudicator had initially determined claimant was entitled to benefits, but this decision was reversed by the appeals referee.

Home Depot's policy concerning conflicts of interest prohibits employees "from accepting tips or work from a Home Depot customer."[*374] As an example of such conflict, the policy provides that employees are barred from "doing work for Home Depot customers using Home Depot products." Claimant acknowledges the policy and agrees that Home Depot's policy precluded him from soliciting or accepting work from Home Depot customers. He understood this policy to prohibit him from on-site solicitation of customers. Claimant denied that he ever solicited from customers in the store.

Although Home Depot alleged that claimant had solicited work from individuals who were shopping in the store, which claimant denied, the appeals referee found that "the employer failed to show that the claimant solicited this work while on the job." Despite this finding, the appeals referee concluded that claimant's actions violated "both the letter and the intent" of Home Depot's policy.

The facts, as found by the appeals referee, demonstrated that the claimant violated this policy on numerous occasions. Claimant, a sales associate for Home Depot, maintained a side business doing electrical work. The referee found that during the course of claimant's employment with Home Depot, claimant would suggest to his electrical business clients that they purchase their materials at Home Depot. Following claimant's advice, his electrical clients would go to Home Depot and purchase their necessary supplies. Afterwards, claimant would perform the electrical work for these individuals, using the products that he had directed them to purchase from Home Depot. The referee could easily conclude that the people who purchased materials from Home Depot at claimant's direction met any reasonable definition of a "Home Depot customer." Such a conclusion is far from surprising and amply supported by the record.

Due to claimant's violation of the employer's policy, one of the evils which the referee determined that the policy was designed to prevent actually occurred. Claimant directed one of his electrical clients to buy certain materials from Home Depot so that claimant could complete some electrical work. When the client became disenchanted with claimant's performance, he repeatedly called claimant at Home Depot to complain. At one point, the client lodged a complaint with management at Home Depot about claimant. This incident had the effect of directly and indirectly dragging Home Depot into the middle of claimant's private dispute with one of its customers.

Where an employee intentionally violates company policy, as the referee found in this case, or ignores standards of behavior which the company is entitled to expect from an employee, as the referee also found, that employee will be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation on grounds of misconduct. See Trinh Trung Do v. Amoco Oil Co., 510 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); § 443.036(26), Fla. Stat. (1993).

The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission adopted the finding of the appeals referee who conducted the hearing below and concluded the claimant's violation amounted to misconduct connected with work. Indeed, the UAC was duty bound to affirm the findings of misconduct made by the referee because those findings were based on competent, substantial evidence in the record. Palmere v. Computerland, 626 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Jones v. Creative World School, Inc., 603 So.2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); David Clark & Assocs., Inc. v. Kennedy, 390 So.2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Likewise, this court must affirm the decision of the UAC based on the well-established and familiar legal principle that an administrative agency's action should be sustained on appeal if based upon any acceptable view of the evidence. See Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 633 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 642 So.2d 1362 (Fla. 1994).

PARIENTE, STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.