JULIO LOPEZ, JR., AND SYLVESTRE SANCHEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, AND HIGHWOODS NURSERY, 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.
Julio Lopez, Jr. and Sylvestre Sanchez challenged the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of unemployment benefits based on misconduct for failing to report for weekend work. The court reversed, holding that the appeals referee's credibility findings that the claimants did not understand weekend work was mandatory were supported by substantial competent evidence and could not be reweighed by the UAC.
The court reversed the UAC's order and reinstated the appeals referee's decision granting benefits, holding that the UAC improperly reweighed evidence and credibility findings that were within the appeals referee's authority to make.
[1] The Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) cannot reweigh evidence and substitute its findings for those of an appeals referee.
[2] The UAC can reverse an appeals referee's finding of fact only if there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support the finding.
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 can reverse a referee's finding only if there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support the finding. The UAC cannot reweigh the evidence and substitute its findings for those of the referee.”
Establishes the standard of review for the UAC's authority over an appeals referee's findings of fact.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLopez and Sanchez worked on a production crew for Highwoods Nursery on a regular Monday-Friday schedule. On Saturday, October 31, 1992, they did not r…
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 Reweighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Claimants Julio Lopez, Jr. and Sylvestre Sanchez challenge final orders of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) denying them unemployment compensation benefits on the basis of misconduct. We reverse.
The claimants worked on a production crew for Highwoods Nursery. The regular company workweek was Monday through Friday. At issue is whether the claimants, who do not speak English, understood that they were required to report for work on Saturday, October 31, 1992. The claimants did not show up on Saturday, and when they reported to work on Monday, they were terminated.
At the hearing before the appeals referee, the employer’s supervisor testified that it was voluntary whether the claimants came to work that weekend, but added that everyone had agreed to work that weekend. The claimants testified that they did not know they were required to work on the weekend in question. Sanchez testified that if he had thought they were required to work that weekend, he would have done so. When questioned about the discrepancy between the hearing testimony and prehearing statements taken by the claims examiner, the claimants explained that the claims examiner took the statements based on information relayed to the claims examiner by an interpreter. Although the claimants signed the statements, they could not read the contents and therefore did not understand them.
The appeals referee determined that the claimants’ failure to report for the weekend work did not constitute misconduct because they did not believe that it was mandatory. In each order, the appeals referee noted that there were evidentiary conflicts and that “[bjased on the candor and demeanor of the parties at the hearing, those conflicts are resolved in favor of the claimant.”
The UAC rejected the appeals referee’s findings of fact, reversed the decision of the appeals referee, and denied the claimants benefits. “The UAC can reverse a referee’s finding only if there is no substantial competent evidence in the record to support the finding. The UAC cannot reweigh the evidence and substitute its findings for those of the referee.” Studor Inc. v. Duren, 635 So. 2d 141, 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citation omitted). Here, the UAC improperly reweighed the evidence. In fact, in the Sanchez order the UAC states that Sanchez’s testimony was “illogical and totally unworthy of belief.” The claimants testified that they did not believe the weekend work to be mandatory. The testimony was confusing, at best, but it was the appeals referee’s duty to make credibility determinations since she saw the demeanor of the witnesses. Thus, we vacate the UAC’s order and reinstate the decision of the appeals referee which grants Lopez and Sanchez unemployment benefits.
Reversed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.