The employer's rule requiring employees to "always store the gun in a safe place" was too vague for the employer to prove violation of the rule and avoid payment of unemployment benefits.

Crespo was employed as an armed security guard by Doyon Security Services. On the day he was discharged, Crespo was assigned to roam the outside perimeter of a detention facility. After realizing he was missing certain necessary paperwork, he drove to the detention facility office, placed his loaded firearm in the unlocked glove compartment of his vehicle and entered the facility to obtain the missing paperwork. He was later terminated for leaving his loaded fire arm in the glove compartment of his vehicle. Crespo filed a claim for unemployment benefits, which was ultimately denied by the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission. The evidence established that the only written policy provided by Doyon regarding weapon storage states that officers must "always store the gun in a safe place" and the term "safe place" was not defined in the policy.

The issue before the Third District Court of Appeal was whether Crespo was discharged for violation of a reasonable and known policy by storing the gun in the glove compartment, rather than in his assigned gun locker. The Court analyzed Fla. Stat. §443.101, together with newly added subsection (e) of §443.036(30), and found that an employer must first establish that the terminated employee committed "a violation of an employer's rule" before the burden shifts to the employee to establish he did not know the rule's requirements. In this case, the court held that Doyon failed to establish there was a policy requiring Crespo to always store the gun in his gun locker or a rule prohibiting Crespo from storing the gun in the glove compartment of a locked vehicle. Therefore, unemployment benefits were deemed payable to Crespo and charged to Doyon's account.

Case Law Alert - 2nd Quarter 2013