ROBERTO ALONSO, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ARABEL, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1993-08-17
Nos. 92-1942, 92-2691
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
622 So. 2d 187 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1993) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

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.

Synopsis

Two unemployed workers challenged the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission's dismissal of their appeals as untimely, claiming due process violations because all notices were in English despite their inability to read English. The court affirmed, holding that providing notice in English satisfies constitutional due process requirements even when the recipient is not fluent in English.


Holding

The court held that providing notice in English satisfies constitutional due process requirements and is not a violation of fundamental fairness. The state has no constitutional obligation to provide notices in languages other than English, even when aware the recipient is not fluent in English.


Headnotes

[1] Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of an action and afford them an opportunity…

[2] The constitutional requirement of reasonable notice is satisfied when notice is given in English, even if the recipient is not fluent in English.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”

Establishes the foundational due process standard for notice that the court applied to evaluate whether English-only notices were constitutionally adequate.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Roberto Alonso received unemployment benefits which his former employer contested; a compensation officer terminated his benefits, and Alonso appealed…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, claimants argue for the reversal of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission’s (FUAC) affirmance of two referees’ decisions barring appeals as untimely. In the first of these consolidated cases, an unemployment referee granted Roberto Alonso unemployment compensation which Alonso’s former employer subsequently contested. An unemployment compensation officer, finding that Alonso had been paid benefits while employed, terminated benefits. Alonso appealed. An appeals referee dismissed Al-onso’s appeal as untimely. The FUAC affirmed the referee’s decision. Alonso claims his appeal was untimely because all notices sent to him were in English, notwithstanding the fact Alonso does not speak, read or write English and this fact was known by the authorities. In the second of these consolidated cases, Dominga Rivas was denied unemployment benefits after being terminated. Thereafter, an appeals referee determined that Rivas had failed to appeal the denial of benefits within the prescribed twenty-day appeals period, and thus had forfeited the right to appeal the denial of benefits. The FUAC affirmed the referee’s decision. Like Alon-so, Rivas claims that all notices of her right to appeal were in English only and she does not speak, read or write English.

Appellants base their appeals on notions of fundamental fairness under the due process clause of article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Based upon the analysis briefly summarized herein, we reject these claims.

As stated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-15, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657-58, 94 L.Ed. 865, 873-74 (1950) (quoting American Land Co. v. Zeiss, 219 U.S. 47, 67, 31 S.Ct. 200, 207, 55 L.Ed. 82 (1911)) (citations omitted) (emphasis added):

An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections_ But if with due regard for the practicalities and peculiarities of the case these conditions are reasonably met, the constitutional requirements are satisfied. ‘The criterion is not the possibility of conceivable injury, but the just and reasonable character of the requirements, having reference to the subject with which the statute deals. ’

Appellants do not argue the notice forms were ambiguous, but rather that they were unclear to appellants solely because appellants are not literate in English. Thus, the essence of their argument is that when the state is obligated to give notice and is aware the recipient is not fluent in English, it must provide such notice in the language comprehensible to the recipient. We join those states which have rejected this argument. See Vialez v. New York City Housing Auth., 783 F.Supp. 109 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Alfonso v. Board of Review, 89 N.J. 41, 444 A. 2d 1075 (N.J.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 806, 103 S.Ct. 30, 74 L.Ed.2d 45 (1982); DaLomba v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 369 Mass. 92, 337 N.E. 2d 687 (1975); Hernandez v. Department of Labor, 83 Ill.2d 512, 48 Ill.Dec. 232, 416 N.E. 2d 263 (1981); Guerrero v. Carleson, 9 Cal.3d 808, 109 Cal.Rptr. 201, 512 P. 2d 833 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1137, 94 S.Ct. 883, 38 L.Ed.2d 762 (1974); see also Kuri v. Edelman, 491 F. 2d 684 (7th Cir. 1974); Nuez v. Diaz, 101 Misc.2d 399, 421 N.Y.S.2d 770 (Sup.Ct.1979). As stated in Alfonso, 444 A. 2d at 1077, “[t]he courts have recognized, whether explicitly or implicitly, that in an English-speaking country, requirements of ‘reasonable notice’ are satisfied when the notice is given in English.” Although some multilingual notices may in some instances be desirable, this, by no means, translates into their use being a requirement under procedural due process concepts.

Accordingly, the orders under review are affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Cenaida Acosta v. Bellsouth Advertising & Publ'g Co., 630 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Marcellus v. Montgomery Realty Investors, 626 So. 2d 1034 (Fla.3d DCA 1993); e.g. Alonso v. Arabel, Inc., 622 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).…
  • …e the Notice of Decision was in English and claimant speaks and reads only Creole. The contention that fundamental fairness requires notice to be given in the claimant’s native language was rejected by this court in [*1035] Alonso v. Arabel, Inc., 622 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA1993). In Arabel this court held that in an English-speaking country, the requirement of reasonable notice is satisfied when notice is given in English. Accordingly, the Unemployment Appeals Commission was not required to notify the clai…
  • Claribel Garcia v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 979 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
    …tal fairness and minimal due process required FUAC and appeals referees to provide notices in any language other than English, even if the claimant does not speak, read or write English and this fact is known by the referees. Alonso v. Arabel, Inc., 622 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Three years later, however, the Florida Legislature amended section 443.151 of the Florida Statutes (1996), “Procedure concerning claims,” to add a new subsection (8) entitled “Bilingual requirements.” Paragraph (a) of the…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw