MARY T. AMATO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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.
Mary Amato appealed an unemployment benefits denial after voluntarily leaving her job. The Unemployment Appeals Commission reversed the appeals referee's finding that Amato had good cause to quit when her employer repeatedly demanded she work five days per week instead of the three days specified in her employment agreement. The court reversed the UAC's decision, holding that the UAC improperly disregarded the referee's factual findings.
The UAC improperly rejected the referee's factual finding that the employer changed the conditions of employment by repeatedly demanding five days of work per week instead of three. The referee's factual finding that this change provided good cause for Amato's resignation should have been upheld, and Amato is entitled to unemployment benefits.
[1] An employee who voluntarily leaves work without good cause is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
[2] An employee who leaves employment for "good cause" attributable to the employing unit will not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Good cause has been defined as "such cause as would reasonably impel the average able-bodied worker to give up his or her employment."”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether an employee had good cause to voluntarily leave employment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmato worked under an employment agreement providing for three days per week in the office. Her employer repeatedly demanded she work five days per we…
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 Good Cause For Leaving Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Mary Amato, challenges a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) which reversed the appeals referee’s conclusion that Amato was entitled to unemployment benefits because she left her job for good cause. Because we find that the UAC improperly disregarded the referee’s findings of fact, we reverse.
A claimant who has voluntarily left work without good cause will be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. But if the employee leaves for “good cause” attributable to the employing unit, the employee will not be disqualified from receiving benefits. See § 443.101, Fla.Stat. (1993). Good cause has been defined as “such cause as would reasonably impel the average able-bodied worker to give up his or her employment.” Uniweld Products, Inc. v. Industrial Relations Comm’n, 277 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
In the instant ease, the referee concluded that because the employer repeatedly demanded that Amato work five days a week in the office, instead of three as their agreement provided, the employer essentially changed the terms of the agreement under which Amato accepted employment. Therefore, the referee concluded, changing the employment terms provided Amato “good cause” for quitting the job. In reversing the referee’s decision, the UAC stated that in leaving her position, Amato “did not act as a reasonable and prudent person interested in retaining gainful employment.” The UAC concluded that the employer’s request that Amato work five days a week instead of three was not a change of the conditions of employment because Amato never worked five days and was not reprimanded for failing to work five days.
While the finding of whether “good cause” exists frequently involves a mixed question of law and fact, in this case, the UAC had no right to reject the referee’s factual finding that the employer, by repeatedly demanding that Amato work more than three days a week, changed the conditions of employment. See Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 570 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Forkey & Kirsch, P.A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Uniweld.
Accordingly, the final order on appeal is reversed and this cause remanded with directions that the order of the referee be reinstated.
STONE, FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Aldrich Party Rental, Inc., 711 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…la. 1st DCA 1980); see also Forkey & Kirsch, P.A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Whether “good cause” exists frequently involves a mixed question of law and fact. See Amato v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Poppe v. Eclectic Business Machines, Inc., 661 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 570 So. 2d 1106 (Fla, 5th DCA 1990); Forkey. Generally, a claimant who has voluntarily left work without…
-
Tourte v. Oriole OF Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…aw. The issue of good cause is similar to an issue of reasonableness and is often a mixed question of fact and law. See Poppe v. Eclectic Bus. Machines, Inc., 661 So. 2d 65, [*1287] 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Amato v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Occasionally, it can be a pure question of law. See Platt v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 618. So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); see also Microfile, Inc. v. Williams, 425 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (holding that Commission…1 / 2
-
Lissette Perez v. Am. Med., Inc., 842 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…); Ferguson v. Henry Lee Co., 734 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); San Roman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Andino v. Lantana Partners, Ltd., 692 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Amato v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). For these reasons, the decision under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to afford Ms. Perez the benefits claimed. WELLS, J., concurs. . In this case the Commission stated “the claimant did not make rea…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Uniweld Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Relations Comm'n, 277 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 570 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Forkey & Kirsch, P. A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)