IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 
FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 
CHRISTINA PEADEN, 
Appellant, 
v. CASE NO. 5D02-3233 
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS 
COMMISSION, et al. 
Appellee. 
______________________________/ 
Opinion filed February 20, 2004 
Administrative Appeal from the 
Unemployment Appeals Commission. 
Christina Peaden, Orlando, pro se. 
Kevin W. Shaughnessy and Gary D. Wilson, 
of Akerman Senterfitt, Orlando, for Appellee 
City Cab Co. of Orlando, Inc. 
No Appearance for Appellee 
Unemployment Appeals Commission. 
SHARP, W., J.
 
Peaden appeals from a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which upheld the 
determination by the appeal referee that she was discharged for misconduct and that she is therefore 
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm. 

Although there were conflicts in the evidence as to whether Peaden had failed to follow the "proper 
chain of command" in not reporting a potentially dangerous driver working for her employer, the City Cab
Company of Orlando, and the extent to which Peadon became abusive and used foul language to address 
her supervisors in the presence of other employees, the findings of the appeal referee are conclusive, in this 
case, because they are supported by competent substantial evidence. See Jackson v. Unemployment 
Appeals Commission, 730 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc. Great 
American Div. v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 671 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The 
referee found that Peaden used profanity toward her supervisors during a counseling session and called one 
supervisor a vulgar name in front of other employees. 

Should this conduct be sufficient to disqualify Peaden from receiving unemployment benefits under 
section 443.101(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), which bars recovery of benefits for employees discharged 
for misconduct? Misconduct is defined, among other things, as: "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."1 

An isolated instance of an employee’s using vulgar language, not in the presence of others, or not 
directed at a supervising employee, may be insufficient. See, e.g., Bivens v. Trugreen LP, 845 So. 2d 
347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Wrightington v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 833 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 
5th DCA 2002). However, vulgarity directed towards a supervisor, in the presence of other employees, 
is sufficient to constitute misconduct under the statute. See, e.g., Davis v. Unemployment Appeals 
Commission, 715 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Suluki v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 
644 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Such behavior tends to undermine the authority and respect for
the employer, supervisor, or leader of an organization, and its overall morale, to such an extent that it 
cannot be tolerated -- like mutiny on the high seas. Discharge or termination should be expected and it is 
serious enough to disqualify a fired employee from receiving unemployment compensation. 

AFFIRMED. 
GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.