STEVE T. PENTON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROYAL CROWN BOTTLING COMPANY OF CHICAGO AND STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, 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.
The court reversed the denial of unemployment benefits because the claimant was not on notice that customer complaints would be an issue at the hearing, and his post-hearing proffer of customer statements contradicting the supervisor's testimony was sufficient to require a new evidentiary hearing.
A claimant denied unemployment benefits must be given notice of the issues to be determined at the hearing, and post-hearing evidence contradicting the employer's testimony may require a new hearing.
[1] A claimant in an unemployment compensation proceeding must receive notice of the issues to be determined at the hearing, and post-hearing evidence contradicting testimony…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePenton, a route salesman for Royal Crown Bottling Company, was terminated for allegedly failing to follow his supervisor's directions to service certa…
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 Notice Of Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission that affirmed the appeals referee’s decision to deny unemployment compensation benefits, and remand for a new evidentiary hearing before the appeals referee. The record contains no indication that Penton, a route salesman for Royal Crown Bottling Company terminated for alleged failure to follow his supervisor’s directions to service certain customers, was on notice that whether complaints were made to his supervisor by customers on his route reflecting dissatisfaction with service would be an issue for determination at the hearing before the appeals referee. Penton had no reason to anticipate that his supervisor would testify that such complaints had been made; and, given the informal nature of the proceedings below, Penton’s proffer to the Commission made after the hearing pursuant to rule 38E-3.005, Florida Administrative Code, consisting of signed statements from several of these customers stating that they had made no such complaints, was sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing thereon, since the appeals referee had accepted and relied upon the supervisor’s testimony in denying benefits. See generally Ogburn v. Murray, 86 So. 2d 796 (Fla.1956); Alston v. Shiver, 105 So. 2d 785 (Fla.1958); Louisville and Nashville R.R. Co. v. Hickman, 445 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), pet. dismissed, 447 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1984); Kline v. Belco, Ltd., 480 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 491 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1986).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 751 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ade a bona fide offer of other work. Due process requires that the claimant receive proper notice of the issues to be heard or expressly waive such notice; otherwise the claimant is deprived of a fair hearing. See Penton v. Royal Crown Bottling Co., 646 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Lewis v. Hot Shoppes, 211 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Kaufman v. Department of Employment Security, 136 Vt. 72, 385 A. 2d 1080 (1978). Appellant clearly lacked any notice that the company’s additional and inconsistent claim w…
-
Montalbano v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 873 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ould be denied because claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with work, court held that claimant was denied due process and appeals referee was not authorized to consider the additional claim); see also Penton v. Royal Crown Bottling Co., 646 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(claimant who was discharged for alleged failure to follow supervisor’s directions to service certain customers was entitled to new evi-dentiary hearing where employer introduced into evidence complaints filed by various customers…
-
Lopez v. A Aaron Super Rooter, Inc., 54 So. 3d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…of Mr. Lopez’s credibility. Basic fairness and due process afford a party, even in an informal process, the right to advance notice of the claims, witnesses, and other evidence to be presented against that party. Penton v. Royal Crown Bottling Co., 646 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The Agency’s Form UCA Bulletin 6E in the record before us states that “copies of all documents available to the referee are enclosed with the Notice of Telephonic Hearing” (paragraph 10) and that copies must be submitted to the…
Authorities Cited
- Alston v. Trillie Shiver, 105 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1958)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Hickman, 445 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Ogburn v. Florence P. Murray and her husband, 86 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 1956)
- Shivers v. The Sch. Bd. OF Dade Cnty., 480 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Kline v. Belco, Ltd., 480 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)