Swope v. Florida Indus. Commission Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, s. 63-554
| Decision Date | 03 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | 63-559,Nos. 63-554,s. 63-554 |
| Parties | Clara B. SWOPE, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW and Jackson's-Byron Department Store, Respondents. Lucille ASH, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW and Jackson's-Byron Department Store, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Butler, Swope & Manning, Miami Shores, David V. Lococo, North Miami, for petitioner.
Burnis T. Coleman, Lawrence Kanzer, Tallahassee, A. Worley Brown, Roy M. Schenerlein, Miami, for respondents.
Before CARROLL, TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.
On certiorari we here review decisions of the Commission that the petitioners, who applied for unemployment compensation, were disqualified for having voluntarily left their employment without good cause. 1 The two cases were consolidated and heard together.
Petitioners were employed by the respondent Jackson's-Byron Department Store (hereinafter referred to as Byron's). Upon noting shortages, Byron's gave notice that employees would be required to submit to polygraph, or lie detector tests periodically, and would be asked, as to the period of time following such notice, whether they had taken merchandise or money. When called on to take such tests petitioners refused, and because they refused were discharged.
At the outset we observe the record does not support the conclusion reached by the appeals referee and adopted by the Board that petitioners voluntarily left their employ. After refusing to take the test petitioners reported for work the following day but were paid off and turned away. The determinative question is whether their refusal to submit to a lie detector test, in the circumstances presented, amounted to misconduct connected with their work. We hold it did not and that the challenged ruling was erroneous.
Byron's could impose the rule and could discharge an employee who would not take the lie detector test. However, violation of an employer's rule which leads to discharge will not disqualify one for benefits unless it appears that the action which prompted the discharge amounted to misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Here the petitioners' discharge was not based on misconduct as defined. See Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 334. In the only case brought to our attention dealing with whether an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Zimmer
...a decided distinction between the foregoing cases that involve public employees and cases such as Swope v. Florida Indus. Comm., Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Rev., 159 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964), that involve the discharge of private employees for refusal to take a polygraph examination without t......
-
Smith v. Director of Division of Employment Sec.
...§ 53 (1975). Cf. McCarthy's Case, 314 Mass. 610, 611, 51 N.E.2d 113 (1943). See Swope v. Florida Indus. Comm'n Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 159 So.2d 653 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1963); Louisiana Hosp. Serv., Inc. v. Bookter, 317 So.2d 282, 285 (La.App.1975); Reed v. Employment Security......
-
Farmer v. City of Ft. Lauderdale
...a decided distinction between the foregoing cases that involve public employees and cases such as Swope v. Florida Indus. Comm., Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Rev., 159 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1964), that involve the discharge of private employees for refusal to take a polygraph examination without t......
-
Fairbanks, Matter of
...See, e. g., State v. Conners, 241 N.W.2d 447, 457-59 (Iowa 1977); See also, Swope v. Florida Industrial Commission Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 159 So.2d 653, 654 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1964). While the results of polygraph examination are of some value, See 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence ......