FLORENCE G. NOFRIO, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND SHOPPER'S SPECIAL, INC., 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.
An employee who informs their employer they will take a months-long vacation without an explicit understanding that their job will remain open has voluntarily left their job without good cause and is not entitled to unemployment benefits.
An employee informed her supervisor she wanted to take time off in addition to her vacation, believing she had consent for an extended leave. The supe…
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 Good Cause For Leaving Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
Florence Nofrio appeals a denial of her claim for unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Mrs. Nofrio was employed by Shopper’s Special, Inc. In the summer of 1982 she informed her supervisor, John Sharkey, that she wanted to take some time off from work in addition to her two-week vacation. From the testimony at the hearing before the unemployment compensation appeals referee, it is apparent that Mrs. Nofrio believed that her employer consented to her plan to take an extended leave of absence and return to work sometime in the fall when business picked up after the employer’s “slow” season. However, Mr. Sharkey apparently believed that Mrs. Nofrio was terminating her employment with the mutual understanding that, because she was an excellent worker and valued employee, she would likely be re-employed by Mr. Sharkey when she returned to town after the slow season.
The unemployment compensation appeals referee found that Mrs. Nofrio had not taken a legitimate leave of absence and, therefore, was not entitled to unemployment benefits pursuant to section 443.101, Florida Statutes (1981). The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed the referee’s decision.
Although we feel sympathy for Mrs. No-frio’s plight, caused by what seems to have been a simple misunderstanding, we also affirm the denial of benefits. It seems to us that an employee who informs her employer that she will be taking a vacation trip of several months duration, without an explicit understanding and assurance that her job will remain open, can be said to have voluntarily left her job without good cause and is not entitled to unemployment benefits. Cf. Board of County Commissioners v. Florida Department of Commerce, 370 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); W.M. Palmer Co. v. Meeks, 354 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
AFFIRMED.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keays v. The State OF Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 592 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…to establish the appropriate and acceptable length of absence. In those cases where that burden has been placed upon the employee, extenuating circumstances were found to exist. For example, in Nofrio v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 442 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), the employee informed her employer that she would be taking a vacation trip of several months, and she left with no specific understanding that her job would remain open. Within that context, this court concluded that she had vol…
-
King v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 763 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…s unacceptable, and the employee should be given a choice of termination or of returning to work.” Id. (citations omitted). The Keays court noted that the facts before it differed from those in Nofrio v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 442 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), where the employee informed her employer about her planned several-month-long vacation “and she left with no specific understanding that her job would remain open.” 592 So. 2d at 1256. Under such circumstances, the duty that norm…
-
Miller v. Am's. Best Painting & Waterproofing, 897 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…nit or which consists of illness or disability of the individual requiring separation from his or her work.” § 443.101(l)(a)(l), Fla. Stat. (2002). The facts in this case are similar to those in Nofrio v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 442 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), where the claimant informed her employer that she would be taking a vacation trip of several months duration without an explicit understanding and assurance that her job would remain open. Under such circumstances, the court foun…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 370 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- W. M. Palmer Co. v. Meeks, 354 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)