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. Conduct sufficient to warrant termination is not necessarily sufficient to forfeit unemployment compensation benefits. Vilar v. Unemployment Appeals Co ropriate language rises to the level of statutory misconduct, we consider several factors, including the frequency of the utterances, the presence of fellow employees or clients, the existence of provocation, and the object of the abusive language. Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>). We are also mindful that we must affirm the
holding that an isolated incident in which an employee used profanity in a telephone conversation with her supervisor did not constitute misconduct sufficient to cut off unemployment benefits holding  1001 prosecution for false statements in unemployment benefits not precluded by unemployment benefits statute specifically addressing topic holding that isolated incident in which claimant raised voice at his supervisor in private office but in front of two other employees and possibly used profanity did not constitute misconduct sufficient to deny unemployment compensation benefits holding that oral notice of charges during a facetoface conversation with supervisor where employee was fired during same conversation was sufficient notice holding that an employers interest in presence at and participation in a hearing on her former employees claim for unemployment benefits did not render the employer a party to that proceeding