BARBARA R. GOODMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ENGLE HOMES, INC., AND 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.
Barbara Goodman appealed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's reversal of an unemployment benefits award. The court reversed the UAC, holding that a bona fide leave of absence does not require the employer and employee to agree upon a specific return date; rather, when an employer fails to inform an employee of unacceptable terms of leave, the employee's absence cannot constitute a voluntary quit.
The court held that a bona fide leave of absence does not require agreement on a specific return date. When an employer and employee agree to a leave of absence, the employer has a duty to inform the employee of the acceptable terms of the leave. If the employer fails to notify the employee that absence is unacceptable and this failure leads the employee to believe the leave is excused, the employee's absence cannot support a finding of voluntary quit.
[1] A bona fide leave of absence for unemployment compensation purposes does not require the employer and employee to agree upon a specific term for the leave.
[2] An agreement for a leave of absence presumes that an employee has a job upon their return.
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 foundational principle that employers bear the duty to communicate acceptable leave terms when a leave of absence is agreed upon.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGoodman worked as a receptionist/Color Coordinator for Engle Homes and discussed taking a leave of absence following her marriage. Her employer promis…
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
POLEN, Judge.
Appellant, Barbara Goodman, appeals from an order of .the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC), reversing the determination of the appeals referee that Goodman was entitled to unemployment benefits. We reverse.
The appeals referee found that Goodman, a receptionist/Color Coordinator with En-gle Homes, had various discussions with her employer regarding a leave of absence Goodman would take following her marriage. The appeals referee found that Goodman was promised reemployment beginning “the next fall season,” as well as a change in location to a more expensive development when she returned. Goodman returned from her honeymoon in early November, and when she contacted her employer she was told that he expected her to return when season began January 1, 1992. The referee noted a conflict in the evidence as to the start date of “season,” resolving the conflict in favor of the employer, determining that January 1 was the start of “season.” The referee concluded that Goodman went on a bona fide leave of absence with a guarantee to return to work when the season picked up again, January 1, 1992. The appeals referee concluded that Goodman was laid off because of a lack of work and was thus entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
Engle Homes appealed the referee’s determination and the UAC reversed. The UAC concluded that a bona fide leave of absence for purposes of unemployment compensation law requires that the employer and employee agree upon a specific term for the leave. It stated that because the parties had not agreed upon a date when Goodman would resume work, Goodman was not on a bona fide leave of absence. The UAC concluded that Goodman voluntarily left her employment following her wedding and she did so without good cause attributable to the employer. We disagree with the UAC’s conclusion that a bona 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 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.
Meyers, 611 So. 2d at 55.
When Goodman and Engle Homes agreed to a leave of absence, it became the duty of Engle Homes to inform Goodman of the acceptable terms of the leave of absence. Because Engle Homes failed to so inform Goodman, her absence did not support a finding that she voluntarily left her employment. The order of the UAC is reversed and remanded, with directions to award Goodman unemployment compensation benefits.
GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . The UAC did not have the benefit of the Meyers opinion at the time it reached its determination.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pollyanne Rodriguez v. Arby's, Inc., 709 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…y 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 employment. See Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Arby’s did not make it clear to Rodriguez that she must either return to work or quit. See Keays, 592 So. 2d at 1255 (“the claimant should be notified that continued absence is unacceptable, and the employee should be given a c…
-
King v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 763 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…” as “only such cause as is attributable to the employing unit or which consists of illness or disability of the individual requiring separation from his or her work.” § 443.101(l)(a)l., Fla. Stat. (1999). The cases of Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), Foote v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 659 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), and Keays v. State of Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 592 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), wherein the appellate courts reversed the UAC’s de…
-
Fillmore v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & La Petite Acad. Inc., 873 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…she voluntarily left employment without good cause attributable to the employer so as to preclude the payment of unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. See Rodriguez v. Arby’s, Inc., 709 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Meyers v. Quality Extruded Prods., Inc., 611 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Keays v. State Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 592 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The above rule is no doubt derived from the statutory canon of constructi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Keays v. The State OF Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 592 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Sanford Meyers v. Quality Extruded Prods., Inc., 611 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)