PRISCILLA J. REX, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND OMNIA, INC., 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.
Priscilla Rex appealed an Unemployment Appeals Commission decision denying her unemployment benefits after being discharged for leaving work without permission. The court held that the UAC improperly substituted its own factual findings for those of the appeals referee, who had found Rex was not guilty of misconduct, and reversed the UAC's decision.
The court held that the UAC erred by improperly reweighting the evidence and substituting its findings for those of the referee. Since substantial competent evidence supported the referee's finding that Rex was not guilty of misconduct, the UAC was not at liberty to modify or reverse those findings.
[1] An unemployment appeals commission cannot modify or reverse the findings and conclusions of an appeals referee if those findings and conclusions are supported by substant…
[2] An unemployment appeals commission errs when it reweighs evidence and substitutes its own factual findings for those of an appeals referee.
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“The UAC is not at liberty to modify or reverse the findings and conclusions of an appeals referee, where such findings and conclusions are supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.”
Establishes the standard of review limiting the UAC's authority over referee decisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRex was discharged from Omnia, Inc. for leaving work without permission. At the evidentiary hearing, the appeals referee found that Rex left work afte…
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 Compensation Benefits Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
The appellant, Priscilla J. Rex, challenges an order of the appellee, the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC), reversing an appeals referee’s finding that Rex is entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Rex contends the UAC erroneously substituted its factual findings for those of the referee and improperly determined that she was discharged from her employment for misconduct in connection with her work. We agree with Rex that the UAC erred in this instance and reverse.
Rex was discharged from her employment at Omnia, Inc. for leaving work without permission. After an evidentiary hearing, the appeals referee found that Rex left work on the day in question after informing her supervisor that she was ill. The referee further found Rex was never told by the supervisor that she was not permitted to leave. The referee concluded that since “the employer’s evidence ... as a whole fail[ed] to establish that the claimant engaged in misconduct,” Rex was entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits.
On the employer’s subsequent appeal, the UAC found that Rex “walked off the job because she was angry, not because she was ill.” The UAC, thus, concluded that “[t]he claimant’s action in leaving the job site without permission ... constitute^] insubordination amounting to misconduct connected with work,” thereby disqualifying her from eligibility for unemployment compensation. Rex filed a timely notice of appeal in this court.
The UAC is not at liberty to modify or reverse the findings and conclusions of an appeals referee, where such findings and conclusions are supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Verner v. State Unemployment Appeals Commission, 474 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Since there is substantial, competent evidence in the instant record to support the referee’s finding that Rex is not guilty of misconduct under section 443.036(26), we find the UAC improperly reweighed the evidence and substituted its findings for those of the referee. Id. at 911.
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the UAC and reinstate the decision of the appeals referee finding that Rex is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cesar v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n & GHM Hollywood Mar LLC., 121 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…l Centers, Inc., 743 So. 2d 95, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding the Commission may not reweigh the referee’s factual findings where such findings are supported by substantial competent evidence in the record); Rex v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 634 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (same); Kelly v. Fla. Min. & Materials Corp., 626 So. 2d 1101, 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (same); Rhodes, Inc. v. Gosha, 496 So. 2d 898, 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (same). See also Eulo v. Fla. Unemployment Appeal Comm’n, 724 So.…
-
Anessa N. Kriston v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 693 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ility of witnesses. The UAC is not permitted to reweigh the evidence or reinterpret evidence to arrive at a desired conclusion. See Freddo v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 685 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Rex v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 634 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The findings which form the basis of the UAC’s decision are in direct conflict with the referee’s findings of fact and are unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Therefore, we set aside the order pursuant to section 120.…
-
City OF Largo v. Rodriguez, 884 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…tions as to the credibility of witnesses, reweigh evidence, or substitute its own judgment for that of the appeals referee. Doyle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Rex v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 634 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). An employee will be disqualified from unemployment benefits if she has been discharged by her employer for misconduct connected with work. § 443.101(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). “[Dishonesty is and should be grounds for dismis…
Authorities Cited
- Verner v. State, 474 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)