NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 
OF FLORIDA 
SECOND DISTRICT 
DEANNA R. HOWELL, )
) 
Appellant, )
) 
v. ) CASE NO. 2D01-76 
) 
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS ) 
COMMISSION and MANATEE COUNTY ) 
GIRLS CLUB, INC., ) 
) 
Appellees. ) 
) 
_____________________________________ 
) 
Opinion filed December 21, 2001. 
Appeal from the Florida Unemployment 
Appeals Commission. 
Deanna R. Howell, pro se. 
John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for Appellee UAC. 
No appearance for Appellee Manatee County 
Girls Club, Inc. 
BLUE, Chief Judge. 

Deanna R. Howell appeals the denial of unemployment compensation 
benefits based on the finding that she was discharged for misconduct connected with
work. Because the record lacks competent, substantial evidence that Howell's absences 
were unauthorized, we reverse. 

Howell was discharged on July 3, 2000, when she was unable to work as 
scheduled. The record reflects that she was initially awarded unemployment benefits 
because willful misconduct had not been substantiated. The employer appealed that initial 
determination. After a telephonic hearing, the appeals referee concluded that Howell was 
discharged for misconduct connected with work, specifically excessive absenteeism and 
tardiness. 

Valerie Taylor, Director of Operations, testified on the employer's behalf. 
Marian Dixon, the program director and Howell's immediate supervisor, did not testify. 
Taylor recited a string of dates from January to June 2000 when Howell was late or absent 
from work. She later admitted, however, that the program was closed on one of the days 
she had recited as an absence. She further testified that, for the dates she had recited, 
she "was just looking at the timecards and looking at blank spaces." Howell testified that it 
was agreed on many days that she could be late because of her school schedule and her 
lack of transportation. She challenged whether her absences were unexcused and 
testified specifically that several of the recited absences were preapproved because she 
had final exams. 

The appeals referee found that Howell was discharged for misconduct 
connected with work. Misconduct is defined as: 
	(a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an 
	employer's interests as is found in deliberate violation or
	disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the 
	right to expect of his or her employee; or 
	(b) Carelessness or negligence of such a degree or 
	recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil 
	design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of 
	the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and 
	obligations to his or her employer. 
§ 443.036(29), Fla. Stat. (2000). Excessive, unauthorized tardiness or absenteeism 
constitutes misconduct related to work. Mason v. Load King Mfg. Co., 758 So. 2d 649, 
651 (Fla. 2000). "The term 'unauthorized' implicitly connotes an element of wilfulness 
because it means that the absences were unexcused and without the permission of the 
employer." 758 So. 2d at 654-55. 

In this case, however, there was no competent, substantial evidence that 
Howell's absences were unexcused. Denial of unemployment benefits cannot be based 
on hearsay evidence alone. Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 635 So. 2d 
1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Taylor testified regarding the days that Howell was absent or 
late but did not testify that they were unexcused absences. Howell specifically challenged 
this aspect of the employer's testimony and offered evidence regarding the excused nature 
of her absences. Based on this record, we conclude that the employer failed to prove a 
key element, i.e., that the absenteeism was unauthorized. For this reason, we reverse the 
denial of benefits. 

Reversed. 
STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.