Commission affirming the appeals referee’s decision to disqualify him from receipt of unemployment benefits on the basis of “misconduct” after he was fired for failing, on two consecutive days, to conduct the “daily inspection” of the store’s inventory of diamonds, as required by the terms of his employment. Two days after Tacher failed to inspect the diamonds, the employer discovered a diamond solitaire had been stolen and replaced with a cubic zirco-nia. We reverse. While Tacher may have exhibited poor judgement, we find that the record does not contain competent substantial evidence to support a finding of “misconduct” as the term is defined in section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1997). See Bulkan v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So.2d 846, 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(<HOLDING>). The statute should be narrowly construed in
holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct holding that a finding of misconduct under section 44303626 requires intentional repeated instances of misconduct or violations of explicit policies after the employee has received warnings holding that two instances of misconduct do not indicate a persistent and widespread pattern of misconduct that amounts to a city custom or policy of overlooking police misconduct holding a defendant seeking a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct has the initial burden to prove thatajuror or jurors did in fact commit the alleged misconduct recognizing that the court sanctions more harshly for cumulative misconduct than for isolated misconduct