SANFORD MEYERS, APPELLANT,
v.
QUALITY EXTRUDED PRODUCTS, INC., AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 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.
Sanford Meyers appealed a denial of unemployment benefits after taking a leave of absence from Quality Extruded Products and not being rehired. The court reversed, holding that when an employer agrees to a temporary leave of absence without explicitly stating that reinstatement is not guaranteed, the employee is entitled to unemployment benefits upon termination.
The employee is entitled to unemployment benefits. An agreement for a temporary leave of absence presumes the employee has a job upon return, and it is the employer's duty to inform the employee of the unacceptable terms of the leave. When an employer fails to notify an employee that absence is unacceptable and the employee reasonably believes the leave is excused, the employee left with good cause attributable to the employer.
[1] An agreement for a leave of absence presumes that an employee has a job upon their return.
[2] It is the employer's duty to inform an employee of the acceptable terms of a leave of absence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“An agreement for a leave of absence presumes that an employee has a job upon his/her return. Thus, it is the employer's duty to inform the employee on the acceptable terms of the leave of absence.”
Establishes the legal presumption in leave of absence agreements and allocates to the employer the burden of communicating conditions or limitations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1991, Meyers informed his employer he would take a leave of absence at the end of March. On April 4, Meyers notified the company president …
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
PER CURIAM.
Sanford Meyers appeals an order from the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming an appeals referee’s denial of unemployment benefits. For the following reasons, we reverse.
In January 1991, Meyers initially informed his employer, Quality Extruded Products, that he would be taking a leave of absence at the end of March. On April 4, Meyers again notified the president of Quality Extruded that he was taking a leave of absence to sell his house in New York and relocate his family to Florida. Meyers telephoned the president on June 19 and told him that the house was sold, that he had relocated, and that he was ready to return to work. The president told Meyers that he no longer had a job.
Meyers filed a claim for unemployment benefits.
At the hearing before the appeals referee, Meyers testified that on April 4, the president agreed to the temporary leave of absence. Meyers argued that this agreement was evidenced by the fact that he left his personal belongings at the job site and that he made several phone calls to the president to discuss business while he was on leave. The president testified that Meyers never asked for a leave of absence. The appeals referee found Meyers’ testimony to be more credible than the president’s testimony and concluded that Meyers and the president had agreed on a leave of absence. The referee, however, denied benefits on the basis that Meyers was not on a bona fide leave of absence because the president did not guarantee that the position would be available upon his return.
This is not a case where upon a request for a leave of absence an employer specifically notifies its employee that the employee’s reinstatement is not guaranteed. See Garcia v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 575 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (employee, who requested leave of absence for six months and was informed that her reemployment was contingent upon position being available, was not entitled to unemployment benefits). In this case, Meyers and the president agreed to a temporary leave of absence without discussing a job guarantee. An agreement for a leave of absence presumes that an employee has a job upon his/her return.
Thus, it is the employer’s duty to inform the employee on the acceptable terms of the leave of absence. See Keays v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 592 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Where an employer fails to notify its employee that absence from employment is not acceptable and such failure leads the employee to believe that the leave of absence is excused, the absence of the employee cannot support a finding that the employee voluntarily left his/her employment. Id.
The president failed to inform Meyers of the acceptable terms for the leave of absence. As a result, Meyers left for New York believing his absence was excused. Therefore, Meyers left his work with good cause attributable to his employer, and is thus entitled to an award of unemployment compensation.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foote v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 659 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…was told that someone could be brought in to cover for him if need be and that he could take a whole week off if necessary. Under these circumstances, Foote’s absences should not constitute misconduct. See Meyers v. Quality Extruded Products, Inc., 611 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (employee who was informed that he no longer had a job following a leave of absence left work with good cause attributable to his employer and thus was entitled to unemployment benefits; the employer had failed to inform the worke…
-
Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…na fide leave of absence for purposes of unemployment compensation law requires that the employer and employee agree upon a specific term for the leave. We agree with the reasoning of the court expressed in Meyers v. Quality Extruded Products, Inc., 611 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).1 There the court noted: An agreement for a leave of absence presumes that an employee has a job upon his/her return. Thus, it is the employer’s duty to inform the employee on the acceptable terms of the leave of absence. See Kea…
-
Pollyanne Rodriguez v. Arby's, Inc., 709 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…failure leads the employee to believe the leave is excused, the employee’s absence cannot support a finding that the employee voluntarily left employment for purpose of unemployment compensation benefits. See Meyers v. Quality Extruded Prods., Inc., 611 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The employer has a duty to inform the employee of acceptable terms of leave; when the employer fails to inform the employee of the expected date of return, absence does not support a finding that the employee voluntarily left emp…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Taylor v. City Nat'l Bank, 575 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Keays v. The State OF Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 592 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)