JERRY W. MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND PURSLEY TURF & GARDEN CENTERS, 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.
Jerry Moore appealed a decision denying him unemployment compensation benefits after he voluntarily left his job as a maintenance worker. The court upheld the unemployment commission's finding that Moore lacked good cause to leave employment when his employer changed its policy regarding rainy day absences.
The court affirmed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of benefits, finding that the employer's action of requiring makeup work for weather-related absences does not constitute wrongful conduct that would reasonably impel the average worker to leave employment.
[1] Unemployment compensation benefits are intended for persons unemployed through no fault of their own.
[2] Workers are disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits if they voluntarily leave their employment without good cause attributable to their employer.
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“In order to constitute 'good cause' for purposes of unemployment compensation, the cause must be one which would reasonably impel the average able-bodied qualified worker to give up his or her employment.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether an employee's voluntary departure is justified for unemployment compensation purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore was hired as a general maintenance worker with an understanding he would receive paid time off on rainy days. Two weeks after hiring, a new oper…
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 Voluntary Departure From Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
In this appeal from an order by the Unemployment Appeals Commission, denying unemployment compensation benefits to Moore, we are asked to determine whether the finding by the Commission that Moore voluntarily left his employment with Purs-ley Turf & Garden Center is supported by competent substantial evidence. We find it is and affirm.
The declared public purpose of Florida’s Unemployment Compensation Law is to provide financial assistance to “persons unemployed through no fault of their own.” Section 443.021, Florida Statutes (1985). To effectuate this purpose the statute disqualifies workers who voluntarily leave their employment without good cause attributable to their employer. Section 443.-101(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). In the present case, Moore was hired as a general maintenance worker with the understanding he would be off with pay on rainy days; however, two weeks after he was hired, a new operations manager changed that policy to require days missed due to rain to be made up on weekends. Moore claims this new policy gave him “good cause” to leave his employment because it took away his ability to earn anywhere from $55 to $100 through independent jobs on the weekends.
In order to constitute “good cause” for purposes of unemployment compensation, the cause must be one which would reasonably impel the average able-bodied qualified worker to give up his or her employment. Marcelo v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 453 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Perez v. Department of Labor & Employment Security, 377 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Thus, the issue presented by Moore herein is whether the employer’s action in changing its policy to require time lost due to rainy weather to be made up on weekends is such that the average worker would reasonably have given up the employment. No Florida cases directly deal with this narrow issue. However, considering the statutory limitation on the authority of this court to review administrative findings contained in Section 120.68(10), Florida Statutes (1985), and the fact that the agency’s decision is supported by competent substantial evidence, we uphold the Commission’s ruling.
It must be kept in mind that Section 443.101(l)(a) only protects workers of employers who wrongfully cause their employees to “voluntarily” leave their employment. Home Fuel Oil Company, Incorporated v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 494 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We do not believe that the employer’s action of requiring Moore to make up work days missed due to inclement weather can be viewed as such a wrongful act.
Accordingly, we affirm.
SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 570 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…is whether she voluntarily left for good cause. “Good cause” for voluntarily quitting are those circumstances which would impel the average, able bodied, qualified worker to give up his employment. Moore v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 498 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Marcelo v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 453 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The applicable standard of reasonableness for determining the question of good cause is a standard of reasonableness applied to the avera…
-
Fran T. Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Jacobs & Goodman, P.A., 633 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…nemployment compensation benefits. See § 443.101(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1991). This subsection only protects workers of employers who wrongfully cause their employees to “voluntarily” leave their employment. Moore v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 498 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Home Fuel Oil Co., Inc. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 494 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The burden below was on the claimant, Brown, to show that her voluntary departure from employment was attributable to the wrongfu…
-
Tourte v. Oriole OF Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…less the Commission has the authority to establish some legal parameters for this issue, referees will be free to reach conflicting outcomes with no meaningful review by the Commission or this court. See Moore v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 498 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (employer’s change in policy requiring outdoor worker to make up rainy days on weekends was not good cause for voluntary termination); Sonterre v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 379 N.W. 2d 281 (N.D.1985) (change in work shift similar t…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Perez v. State, 377 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Marcelo v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 453 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Home Fuel OIL Co. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Irene F. Castle, 494 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)