MURIAL H. FURLOTT, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND FOX & RAHTER, RESPONDENTS
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.
The court held that the unemployment compensation appeals referee's decision was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
An employee was told by her employer's remaining partner that she should leave the firm following the senior partner's withdrawal. The referee found s…
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 Unemployment Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
An unemployment compensation appeals referee held that Murial H. Furlott, the petitioner, voluntarily left her employment with the law firm of Fox & Rahter, without good cause attributed to the employer. The referee found that Furlott was not, therefore, entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Upon review, the unemployment appeals commission affirmed the referee and adopted his decision. Because we find the decision is not supported by competent substantial evidence, we grant Furlott’s petition for review and remand this case with directions to enter an order allowing Furlott’s claim.
The referee’s decision was based upon findings that Furlott had left her employer for personal reasons and that there was continued work available for Furlott with her employer. The uncontroverted evidence, however, establishes that Furlott was the personal secretary of Ronald E. Fox, the senior partner in Fox & Rahter. Fox decided to withdraw from the firm, and a meeting was held between Fox, Fur-lott, and J. Richard Rahter, the remaining partner. During this meeting it was established that Fox was leaving the firm. Rahter, as the remaining partner, advised Furlott that the sooner she left the better. Additionally, during the examination of Rahter by the referee, the referee questioned Rahter as to whether there was work available for Furlott. Rahter did not directly answer the question, but simply stated that he “would not have kept her.”
There is no support in the record for the referee’s decision. To the contrary, the evidence clearly establishes that Furlott is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. We grant Furlott’s petition for review and set aside the order of the commission. The case is remanded with directions to enter an order allowing the benefits.
GRIMES, C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Home Fuel OIL Co. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Irene F. Castle, 494 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We note in passing that had it been found that Castle left Patel’s employ that day under the circumstances found here, rather than appellant’s, we might not so rule. See Furlott v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 386 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Because we find no actions of appellant gave employee Castle good cause to voluntarily leave her employment (within the meaning of the statute), we must reverse the UAC’s decision that Castle is qualified to receive benefits cha…