MONSANTO COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, AND BERLINDA HOWARD, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Monsanto appealed an unemployment benefits award for an employee on maternity leave, arguing the employee was ineligible because she was unable to work during that period. The court reversed, holding that eligibility for unemployment benefits requires both ability and availability to work, which Ms. Howard could not satisfy while on maternity leave.
An employee on maternity leave who is unable to work is not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits because Florida law requires both ability to work and availability for work as essential conditions of eligibility, which Ms. Howard could not satisfy during her maternity leave.
[1] An individual must be able to work and be available for work to be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
[2] An employee on maternity leave who is medically unable to perform her job duties is not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits during that leave period.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An essential requirement which might be met by an unemployed individual in order to be eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits is that of ability to work and availability for work.”
Establishes the statutory requirement from Section 443.05(l)(c)1, Florida Statutes that the court applied to deny benefits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Howard, a draw-twist operator at Monsanto, took a voluntary layoff in November 1977 after her doctor advised she could not perform required work d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Maternity Leave cases and more on FLexlaw
BOOTH, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the award of unemployment benefits for the period during which the employee was on maternity leave. We reverse.
The facts are that Ms. Howard, a draw-twist operator at Monsanto Company, left her employment around November 19, 1977 on a voluntary layoff. At this time, Ms. Howard had been advised by her doctor that she “wouldn’t be able to do the work that was required” since she was seven and one-half months pregnant. After being recalled from the voluntary layoff on December 19, 1977, Ms. Howard requested and was granted a company-approved maternity leave effective December 21, 1977. Monsanto advised her that as soon as she was medically able and wanted to, she could return to work. Ms. Howard returned to work around March 15, 1978 “as soon as [she] was able to go back to work.”
Monsanto does not contest Ms. Howard’s eligibility for unemployment benefits during the period of her voluntary layoff. Monsanto does contest, however, the appeals referee’s determination that Ms. Howard was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits during the period of her voluntary maternity leave when, based upon the evidence presented, Ms. Howard was unable to work.
An essential requirement which might be met by an unemployed individual in order to be eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits is that of ability to work and availability for work. Section 443.-05(l)(c)l, Florida Statutes (1977). The evidence presented revealed that Ms. Howard left her employment because she was no longer able to work and that she returned to work as soon as she was able to do so. Clearly, the evidence showed that Ms. Howard was not able to work during the period of her company-approved maternity leave. Therefore, she was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
Robinson v. Industrial Relations Commission, 329 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), relied upon by the appeals referee, is inapposite to the present case. Therein, the court determined that an employee, terminated due to economic conditions following an employer-approved maternity leave, had not voluntarily left her employment without good cause attributable to her employer. Accord, Fisher v. Department of Commerce, 333 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Swavely v. Industrial Relations Commission, 345 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In none of the aforementioned cases did the court hold that an employee was entitled to unemployment benefits during the time she was on maternity leave.
Accordingly, the Order below is REVERSED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and LARRY G. SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ina M. Baeza v. PAN American/National Airlines, Inc., 392 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…399 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1977). See Generally 51 A.L.R.3d 254 (1973). A pregnant employee is not automatically unavailable for work. Unlike the applicant in Monsanto v. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Employment Security, 371 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), these applicants have not been shown to be unavailable for other work in positions that do not require flying. Section 443.06(2)(a) contains factors to be considered in determining whether work is suitable, but nothing in the st…
-
Buns Unlimited OF Fla., Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 508 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…court decisions have interpreted the statute in the same manner. See Baptist Medical Center v. Stolte, 475 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), review denied, 486 So. 2d 598 (Fla.1986); Monsanto Co. v. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 371 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); McCormick v. Henry Koerber, Inc., 252 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Dickinson v. Florida Industrial Commission, 227 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Claimant readily admitted that he was physically unable to return to full-time…
-
In re the Sch. Bd. OF Volusia Cnty. v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 393 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…. (1979). . § 443.05(1)(c)(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). . Fla.R.App.P. 9.200(f). . § 443.05(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1979). . § 443.05(l)(c)(l), Fla.Stat. (1979). .Monsanto Company v. Fla. Dept. of Labor & Employment Security Division of Employment Security. 371 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. Indus. Relations Comm'n, 329 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Fisher v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 333 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Maude Collins v. Freeman, 333 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Swavely v. Indus. Relations Comm'n, 345 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)