PEDRO ARREDONDO, APPELLANT,
v.
JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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.
Pedro Arredondo appealed the denial of unemployment benefits after voluntarily resigning from his computer operator position at a hospital. The court affirmed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's finding that Arredondo left without good cause attributable to his employer, despite his medical difficulties with the night shift.
Arredondo was not entitled to unemployment benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer. Although he had medical difficulties adjusting to the night shift and suffered migraine headaches, these did not constitute a compelling and necessitous reason to resign when he had worked similar hours previously and the dissatisfaction with shift and pay differential appeared to be his primary motivation.
[1] An individual is disqualified for unemployment benefits if they voluntarily leave their employment without good cause attributable to their employer.
[2] Dissatisfaction with working hours and pay differential alone does not constitute good cause for voluntarily leaving employment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 individual shall be disqualified for benefits if he has voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer”
States the statutory standard for disqualification from unemployment benefits under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArredondo was hired as a computer operator in February 1981 with hours from midnight to noon, Thursday through Sunday. He experienced difficulty sleep…
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 Reasonable Basis In Law And Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the decision of the Appeals Referee. The Referee’s decision was supported by the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
“FINDINGS OF FACT: Claimant became employed by the operator of a hospital as a computer operator in February, 1981. His assigned hours of work were from 12 midnight to 12 noon Thursday through Sunday. During the course of the claimant’s employment the claimant found that he had difficulty sleeping during the day. The claimant also found that he had difficulty sleeping during the day when he worked the same shift for approximately one year before he took this employment. The claimant was also dissatisfied with the employer’s pay differential for the shift and for these reasons he notified his employer that unless both conditions were corrected that he would leave his employment. When the conditions were not corrected the claimant decided to leave his employment on April 19, 1981, and he tendered his resignation at that time.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The Unemployment Compensation Law provides that an individual shall be disqualified for benefits if he has voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer. The record and evidence of the instant case clearly show that the claimant voluntarily left his employment on April 19, 1981. It has further been shown that he took such action because he was dissatisfied with his working hours and the pay differential. To this extent, the claimant testified that he left his employment for a valid medical reason and submitted some medical documentation to that extent. The law does provide that an individual may leave employment with good cause if there is a bona fide medical condition demanding that that individual become separated from the employment. In the instant case, however, the claimant demonstrated that he worked on the third shift for at least a year and during which time he earned the wage credits of his claim and suffered from the same basic effects. Although the claimant clearly had some difficulty in working at nights because he could not adjust to the sleep routine and had migraine headaches it has not been shown that he was furnished with a compelling and necessitous reason to leave his employment based upon the evidence presented. The claimant’s letter of resignation clearly states that he was dissatisfied with the shift as a whole and the pay differential which was apparently the reason that he left his employment at the time. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer, within the meaning of the law.”
There is competent substantial evidence in the record and a reasonable basis in law to support the findings and conclusions of the Appeals Referee, adopted by the Commission, that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer, within the meaning of Section 443.101(1), Florida Statutes. Therefore we must reject appellant’s contentions and affirm the order appealed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Asela Ortega v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 849 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ate, the appellant voluntarily quit her employment, and was therefore disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits. See Sollecito v. Hollywood Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 450 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Arredondo v. Jackson Memorial Hospital, 412 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Uniweld Products, Inc. v. Industrial Relations Commission, 277 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Affirmed.…
-
Gabriel v. Astengo, 774 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…has not received a raise in salary to which he feels entitled, but which was never unequivocally promised to him by the employer, his departure cannot be considered “for good cause attributable to the employer.” See Arredondo v. Jackson Mem. Hosp., 412 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). But cf. Kralj v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 537 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)(where a specific salary increase was promised to go into effect at a certain time, but that time passed without the increase, employee left e…
-
Robinson v. The Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 500 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Arredondo v. Jackson Memorial Hospital, 412 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Beard v. State Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 369 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Uniweld Products, Inc. v. Industrial Rela [*351] tions Commission, 277 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence