INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/FINANCE OFFICE, APPELLANT,
v.
JUAN P. LORETO, JR., AND UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed an unemployment benefits award to a county employee who had resigned. The court held that an oral statement by a supervisor suggesting the employee could withdraw his resignation was a gratuitous statement that could be retracted and did not create a binding obligation, so the employee's resignation was valid and he was not entitled to unemployment benefits.
The court held that the oral statement was a gratuitous statement that could be retracted and did not create a binding obligation. Since Loreto voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to the employer, he was not entitled to unemployment benefits.
[1] An unconditional resignation, once accepted by an employer, generally cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by the employee.
[2] An employer is typically under no obligation to permit an employee to withdraw a resignation after it has been accepted.
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“once an employee has resigned, his employer is under no obligation under Chapter 443, Florida Statutes, to permit the withdrawal of the resignation”
Establishes the general legal principle that employers have no obligation to accept resignation withdrawals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 2, 1985, employee Loreto submitted an unconditional letter of resignation effective in February 1986. A county representative orally acce…
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 Benefits Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission granting unemployment benefits to a county employee who had previously resigned. On September 2, 1985, the employee, Loreto, submitted an unconditional letter of resignation to be effective in February, 1986. A representative of the county orally accepted the resignation, but suggested that Lor-eto reconsider, and allegedly advised him that he could have the option of subsequently withdrawing the letter. However, the following day the county in writing unconditionally accepted the resignation. In January, Loreto attempted to withdraw his resignation, but the county refused to retract its acceptance.
The appeals referee found that although the claimant had set in motion the events leading to his termination, there was a binding agreement by the employer that the employee could subsequently change his mind. It is undisputed that, generally, once an employee has resigned, his employer is under no obligation under Chapter 443, Florida Statutes, to permit the withdrawal of the resignation. See Nofrio v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, Unemployment Appeals Commission, 442 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); W.M. Palmer Co. v. Meeks, 354 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
The Board of County Commissioners contends that the referee erroneously applied contract principles in reaching her decision, although no valid contract existed. It points out that even if contract law applies, there was no consideration for the alleged “option”, and that it would have been effectively revoked by the county’s unconditional acceptance of the resignation on the following day.
The Unemployment Appeals Commission’s position is that, regardless of contract law, and even in the absence of any reliance or other consideration, once the offer to withdraw his resignation was made to the employee, the failure of the county to honor it constitutes a “termination” of the employment.
We conclude that the referee erred in determining that the gratuitous statement by the supervisor could not be retracted by the county. The letter was in fact an unconditional resignation. The finding that Loreto was “terminated” by the county was, therefore, not supported by substantial competent evidence. Cf Nofrio; W.M. Palmer Company. Having voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer, Loreto is not entitled to unemployment benefits. The order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission requiring payment of benefits is reversed.
GUNTHER, J., and WEBSTER, PETER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- W. M. Palmer Co. v. Meeks, 354 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Nofrio v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 442 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)