JOSE CISNEROS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed dismissal of unemployment benefits appeal where claimant appeared timely but was turned away for lack of interpreter, holding that dismissal for non-appearance was unsupported by the record.
A claimant's appeal cannot be dismissed for non-appearance when the claimant appeared at the scheduled time but was prevented from proceeding due to lack of an interpreter.
[1] A claimant appearing at a scheduled unemployment hearing cannot be dismissed for non-appearance merely because he was unable to proceed without an interpreter, absent not…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The appellant was duly notified to appear but failed to do so”
Referee's formal order, which the court found unsupported by the record
Cisneros, a non-English speaker, appeared five minutes early for his unemployment hearing on December 1, 1983, found an interpreter from the claims li…
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 Appeal Of Unemployment Benefits Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission which affirmed the decision of the Appeals Referee dismissing Cisneros’ appeal from a denial of unemployment compensation benefits. A review of the record demonstrates that a dismissal of Cisneros’ appeal on the grounds of his non-appearance is unsupportable. Cisneros’ hearing before the Referee was scheduled for 2:15 p.m. on December 1, 1983. As the Referee herself noted, Cisneros (who neither spoke nor understood English) appeared at 2:10 p.m. without an interpreter, was advised to get an interpreter, and reappeared at 2:15 p.m. with “another claimant he found in the claims line to interpret.” When this interpreter could not stay for the hearing, Cisneros was told the hearing could not be held without an interpreter, and Cisneros left. There is absolutely nothing in this record to indicate that Cisneros was made aware that his leaving would constitute a non-appearance, and thus a failure to prosecute, resulting in dismissal of his appeal, and nothing to support the Referee’s formal order, which states, inter alia, that “[t]he appellant was duly notified to appear but failed to do so,” and “[t]he Referee was not notified of any reason for nonappearance.”
Reversed and remanded with directions that appellant be given a new hearing upon proper notice before an Appeals Referee.