DOROTHY M. FRESHLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND ROMAC PROFESSIONAL TEMPORARIES, 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.
Dorothy Freshley appeals the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of unemployment benefits after she voluntarily left a temporary position at Fortune Bank to accept a permanent job. The court reverses, holding that leaving a temporary job to pursue permanent employment is attributable to the employer and does not disqualify a worker from receiving benefits.
The court held that Freshley's departure was attributable to the employer because the average able-bodied worker would have left a temporary position in favor of permanent employment. Temporary positions taken to make ends meet are analogous to part-time work and do not attach an employee to a regular employer, thus preserving unemployment benefit eligibility.
[1] An average, able-bodied worker would leave a temporary position in favor of a permanent one.
[2] Leaving a temporary job to accept a permanent position is considered good cause attributable to the employer for the purpose of 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“the reason was attributable to the employer”
The court's principal holding that leaving a temporary job due to its temporary nature is attributable to the employer, not a voluntary quit without cause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFreshley worked at First Florida Bank for seventeen years before being laid off when Barnett acquired the bank. She registered with a temporary staffi…
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 Temporary Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Claimant challenges the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s (UAC) order denying her unemployment benefits. She was denied benefits on the grounds that she voluntarily left her previous employ without good cause attributable to her employer. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that although she left voluntarily, the reason was attributable to the employer. Claimant worked for First Florida Bank for seventeen years before she was laid off when the bank was bought by Barnett. After being laid off, claimant registered with ROMAC Professional Temporaries and was placed on a temporary assignment at Fortune Bank, starting September 23, 1993, that would last until perhaps the end of the year. According to ROMAC, the assignment was temporary and would definitely end. Claim ant then left Fortune Bank to take a job with Karen S. Keaton, P.A., beginning October 5, 1993. She was discharged approximately one month later because she did not have the necessary legal background. Claimant’s request for unemployment benefits was denied because it was determined that she voluntarily left Fortune Bank/ROMAC to work for Keaton and that her departure was without good cause attributable to Fortune Bank/RO-MAC. We conclude that the average, able-bodied worker would have left Fortune Bank/ROMAC under similar circumstances.
This court established in Neese v. Sizzler Family Steak House, 404 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), that taking a part-time job to help make ends meet does not disqualify an individual from receiving unemployment benefits for previously-held full-time work. In a case factually similar to the instant case, Palm Beach School Board v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 576 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the court concluded that where a woman who had held a full-time job as a computer sales clerk signed on with the school board as a substitute teacher, that substitute teaching job was similar to part-time work in that it was only used as a means to make ends meet while looking for a permanent full-time job. As such, the court concluded that the claimant had not been attached to a “regular employer” and was, accordingly, entitled to unemployment benefits, reduced by any income she earned substitute teaching. The court reasoned: “Any other result would only serve to discourage an unemployed individual from seeking what work he or she can find while seeking more permanent full time employment, to the detriment both of the individual and at greater cost to the unemployment compensation fund.” 576 So. 2d at 365.
We conclude that similar reasoning applies here. Claimant was laid off from First Federal and only took the temporary job at Fortune Bank in the interim to make ends meet. In this respect, the temporary position was analogous to the substitute teaching position in Palm Beach School Board. Given the temporary nature of the Fortune Bank position, we conclude that the average, able-bodied employee would have left that position in favor of a permanent position. As such, her leaving Fortune Bank/ROMAC was attributable to the temporary nature of the position offered. To hold otherwise would discourage temporary employment.
Since we conclude that the UAC order is not supported by substantial, competent evidence, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
PATTERSON and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pugh v. Regal Dev. Corp. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 662 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…e job with Regal Development, an average, able-bodied employee would have left that position in favor of another which paid a greater hourly wage and offered the prospect of longer-term employment. See Freshley v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm., 651 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Accordingly, the order on appeal is REVERSED. We REMAND with directions that appellant’s unemployment compensation benefits be reinstated. ZEHMER, C.J., and BARFIELD and KAHN, JJ., concur.…
-
Duby v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Staffmark Human Res., 765 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…died employee would have left that position in favor of another which paid a greater hourly wage and offered the prospect of longer-term employment.” Id. at 1356 (citation omitted). Similarly, in Freshley v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 651 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), a case most closely on point, the claimant worked for First Florida Bank for seventeen years until she was discharged. After losing her job she registered with a temporary employment agency who assigned her to Fortune Bank, an as…
Authorities Cited
- Neese v. Sizzler Fam. Steak House & Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 404 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Palm Beach Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. State, 576 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)