WILLIE C. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND NELSON & COMPANY, 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.
Willie Williams appealed a denial of unemployment benefits after his discharge for refusing to work on a Saturday due to his ill father's medical needs. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's order, holding that the Commission improperly redetermined factual findings made by the appeals referee that were supported by substantial, competent evidence.
The court held that the Unemployment Appeals Commission may only reverse an appeals referee's findings where there is no substantial, competent evidence supporting them, and here the evidence supported the referee's decision that Williams' temporary refusal to work due to a legitimate family emergency did not constitute misconduct precluding unemployment benefits.
[1] An employee's refusal to work on a Saturday due to a legitimate family emergency does not constitute misconduct disqualifying them from unemployment benefits.
[2] The Unemployment Appeals Commission may only reverse the findings of an appeals referee if there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the referee's findings.
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“While the Unemployment Appeals Commission has the authority to reverse the findings and conclusions of the appeals referee, pursuant to section 443.151(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), the Commission may only do so where there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the referee's findings.”
Establishes the standard of review for appeals referee decisions and limits the Commission's authority to reverse.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was hired as a truck driver in 1980 and was discharged in February 1991 after refusing to work on a Saturday to care for his ill father. The …
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Williams appeals from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission denying him unemployment benefits. He argues the Commission should not have reversed (or redetermined) the appeals referee’s finding that he was not guilty of misconduct and that he was entitled to unemployment benefits. We agree.
Williams was hired as a truck driver in 1980 and was discharged from his employment in February, 1991, after he refused to work on a Saturday. Williams’ father was ill and Williams was the only family member available to take his father to the doctor or hospital on a Saturday. The appeals referee found that Williams was responding to a legitimate family emergency and that his refusal to work on Saturday did not rise to the level of misconduct which precludes unemployment benefits.1
While the Unemployment Appeals Commission has the authority to reverse the findings and conclusions of the appeals referee, pursuant to section 443.151(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1991), the Commission may only do so where there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the referee’s findings.2 Here the evidence supports the appeals referee’s decision that Williams’ refusal to work Saturday did not amount to misconduct.
Evidence was presented that Williams’ employer knew Williams’ father was ill and had excused Williams from work on a previous Saturday to attend to him. There was no evidence that Williams had been warned that a refusal to work on another Saturday would result in termination. The employer admitted that Williams was a good worker and Williams had been working for the company for over ten years. Williams had worked other Saturdays and this was apparently the first and only time he had refused to work on a Saturday over his employer’s objection. When Williams was asked to work on Saturday, he could have reasonably believed that it was necessary for him to be available on that date to drive his father for treatment, should the need arise, even though no doctor or hospital appointment had actually been scheduled.
Given this testimony and the referee's determinations in Williams’ favor, this type of temporary absence or refusal to work because of a legitimate family emergency does not constitute misconduct. It was therefore erroneous for the Commission to (in effect) redetermine factual issues found by the referee, based on competent, substantial evidence. See Ladson v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 543 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Campbell v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 455 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Howlett v. South Broward Hospital Tax District, 451 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Hartenstein v. Florida Department of Labor, 383 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission, and remand the cause with instructions to reinstate the appeals referee’s decision.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HARRIS and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . See §§ 443.101(l)(a), 443.036(26), Fla.Stat. (1991).
. Kan v. P.G. Cook Associates, 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lake County Sheriff's Department v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 478 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Verner v. State, Unemployment Appeals Commission, 474 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Forkey and Kirsch, P.A. v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); David Clark and Associates v. Kennedy, 390 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jeri R. Anderson v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 822 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…mmission has the authority to reverse the findings and conclusions of the appeals referee, the commission may only do so where there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the referee's decision.”); Williams v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 608 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 498 So. 2d 608, (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lake County Sheriffs Dept. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 478 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); see also Tedder v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 69…
-
Orange Bank v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Janice S. Sloan, 611 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…mission has the authority to reverse the findings and conclusions of the appeals referee, the commission may only do so where there is no substantial, competent evidence to support the referee’s decision. Williams v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 608 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Kan v. P. G. Cook Associates, 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lake County Sheriffs Department v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 478 So. 2d 880 (F…
-
Foote v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 659 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…oyment Appeals Commission, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). We have previously held that a temporary absence or refusal to work because of a legitimate family emergency does not constitute misconduct. Williams v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 608 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Here, Foote’s wife hemorrhaged with a tubal pregnancy and was taken to the hospital for emergency surgery on Friday, April 8, 1994. On Monday evening, Foote brought his wife home from the hospital. He did not go to work on Monda…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- David Clark & Assocs., Inc. v. Lowell E. Kennedy, Jr., 390 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Verner v. State, 474 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Lewis v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 498 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Forkey & Kirsch, P. A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- The Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. OF the State OF Fla. v. Ondrizek, 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Hartenstein v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 383 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Lake Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 478 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Erskine Fla. Props., Inc. v. Hartwell, 451 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Campbell v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 455 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Portofino Rest., Inc. v. Utah State Ret. Fund, 543 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)