NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 
OF FLORIDA 
SECOND DISTRICT 
CYNTHIA L. BORLAND, ) 
) 
Appellant, ) 
) 
v. ) Case Nos. 2D04-3305 
) 
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS ) 
COMMISSION and GOLD BANK, ) 
) 
Appellees. ) 
) 
Opinion filed September 9, 2005. 
Appeal from the Unemployment 
Appeals Commission. 
Grissim H. Walker, Jr., Bradenton, 
for Appellant. 
Geri Atkinson-Hazelton, General 
Counsel, and John D. Maher, Deputy 
General Counsel, Unemployment 
Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, 
for Appellee. 
No appearance for Appellee Gold Bank. 
ALTENBERND, Judge. 

Cynthia Borland appeals a final order issued by the Unemployment 
Appeals Commission affirming an appeals referee's determination that she engaged in 
misconduct connected with her employment with Gold Bank that disqualified her from 
receiving unemployment benefits. Ms. Borland's testimony was the only evidence 
presented at the hearing before the appeals referee. Because that testimony did not 
support a finding of misconduct, we reverse. 

Ms. Borland was fired from her position as a teller at Gold Bank after 
working for the bank for six months. At the hearing before the appeals referee, which 
only Ms. Borland attended, Ms. Borland testified that bank personnel told her she was 
fired for failing to secure her cash drawer at the close of day on three occasions. Ms. 
Borland admitted to the appeals referee that she had indeed mistakenly failed to secure 
the drawer as required. She said that her actions were not intentional. She explained 
that the cash in the drawer remained inaccessible to anyone but bank personnel 
because of the security system of the bank. Thus the bank had not suffered any loss as 
a result of her negligence. Ms. Borland also explained that the mistake was caused in 
part by a bank policy prohibiting overtime, which caused the tellers to often rush through 
their closing procedures. She indicated that the supervisor who fired her was upset that 
she had to let Ms. Borland go because Ms. Borland was a good employee. 
Section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2003), defines "misconduct" 
	sufficient to support the denial of unemployment benefits as: 
	(a) Conduct demonstrating willful or wanton disregard of 
	an employer's interests and found to be a deliberate violation 
	or disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer 
	has a right to expect of his or her employee; or 
	(b) Carelessness or negligence to a degree or recurrence 
	that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, or evil 
	design or shows an intentional and substantial disregard of 
	the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and 
	obligations to his or her employer. 

This statute is liberally construed in favor of a claimant of unemployment 
benefits. § 443.031, Fla. Stat. (2003). As this court has previously explained, misconduct 
serious enough to warrant the discharge of an employee is not necessarily 
serious enough to warrant a denial of benefits. Livingston v. Tucker Constr. & Eng'g, 
Inc., 656 So. 2d 499, 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In addition, the employer has the burden 
of establishing an employee's misconduct. Gunther v. Barnett Banks, Inc., 598 So. 2d 
243, 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (citing Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Fla. Unemployment 
Appeals Comm'n, 463 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)). 

Because a representative of Gold Bank did not appear at the hearing 
before the appeals referee, the unrefuted testimony established that Ms. Borland 
inadvertently or negligently failed to secure her cash drawer as required by bank 
policies on three occasions over a six-month period. It is understandable that a bank 
might feel compelled for security reasons to terminate an employee who seems unable 
to comply with this policy. Nevertheless, Ms. Borland's mistakes do not demonstrate a 
"willful or wanton disregard" of the bank's interest nor "negligence to a degree or 
recurrence that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design." § 443.036(29). 

We therefore reverse the Commission's order denying Ms. Borland unemployment 
benefits and remand with instructions to award her unemployment benefits. See Smith 
v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 831 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that 
employee's second violation of policy to not wear gloves while operating certain 
machinery, after warning, was not misconduct sufficient to support a denial of 
unemployment benefits); Frazier v. Home Shopping Club, LP., 784 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d 
DCA 2001) (holding employee's repeated failure to input certain comments in computer 
in accordance with company policy, even after repeated warnings, did not constitute 
misconduct under unemployment statute); Rogers v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals 
Comm'n, 597 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that preschool teacher's decision 
to leave a classroom of children unattended to search for a missing student after she 
was warned not to do so but was unable to obtain help from an aide was not misconduct); 
cf. Gulf County Sch. Bd. v. Washington, 567 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1990) (stating, 
"[i]t is well settled that an employee who is discharged because he cannot adequately 
perform the work is entitled to unemployment compensation in spite of the fact that the 
employer had good reason to fire him"). 

Reversed and remanded. 
NORTHCUTT and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.