SANDRA L. ANDINO, APPELLANT,
v.
LANTANA PARTNERS, LTD. AND FLORIDA 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.
Sandra Andino quit her admissions job at a nursing home after her employer unilaterally increased her telephone-answering duties without additional compensation or adjustment. The referee found this constituted a material breach justifying her resignation, but the Unemployment Appeals Commission reversed. The appellate court held the UAC impermissibly reweighed the evidence and reinstated her unemployment benefits.
The court reversed the UAC's decision, holding that Andino was entitled to unemployment benefits because the referee's finding that Lantana materially breached the employment contract by substantially increasing job duties was supported by competent, substantial evidence and was properly made by the referee who observed witness credibility.
[1] An employer's unilateral and significant change in an employee's job requirements constitutes a material breach of the employment contract, entitling the employee to unem…
[2] The determination of whether an employee left employment voluntarily for cause attributable to the employer is a question of fact.
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 determination of whether an employee has left employment voluntarily for cause attributable to the employer is a question of fact.”
Establishes the standard of review and nature of the issue on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndino worked at Hill Haven Rehabilitation Center performing admissions duties including typing, filing, and answering phones during a 5:00 p.m. to 9:…
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 Question Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Sandra L. Andino worked at Hill Haven Rehabilitation Center, a nursing home operated by Lantana Partners, Ltd., for a short period. She was hired to perform admissions work with responsibilities including typing, filing, and answering the telephone during her 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. shift. Upon the commencement of her employment, another person assisted in answering the phones. At a later time, however, that person was terminated leaving Ms. Andino to answer all of the telephone calls. Because Ms. Andino found herself incapable of performing the additional duties, she quit. Lantana challenged her application for unemployment benefits, and after a hearing the referee ruled that it had materially breached its contract with Ms. Andino by making a significant unilateral change in her job requirements. Ms. Andino was awarded benefits. Lantana appealed to the Unemployment Appeals Commission. That body reversed the referee and held that Ms. Andi-no was not entitled to benefits. In our judgment, the UAC impermissibly reweighed the evidence before it; we reverse and remand for the reinstatement of Ms. Andino’s benefits.
The determination of whether an employee has left employment voluntarily for cause attributable to the employer is a question of fact. Carey McAnally & Co., Inc. v. Woodring, 629 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The referee, after considering all of the evidence and judging the credibility of the witnesses who were heard and observed during the hearing, found that the additional telephone duties were a substantial change in Ms. Andi-no’s contract of employment. Ms. Andino’s complaints that the extra work prevented her from doing the job for which she was hired were unavailing. Because this was an oral contract situation, the referee was in a superior position. to judge whether the added duties were significant. The UAC overstepped its bounds in failing to uphold the referee’s decision, which was supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Stahl v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 502 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tourte v. Oriole OF Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…legal and policy decision. This opinion is the second recent case to authorize unemployment compensation for employees who quit because of small changes in the conditions of their oral contracts of hire. See, e.g., Andino v. Lantana Partners, Ltd., 692 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (answering telephones without assistance was change in job conditions of at-will employee justifying voluntary termination). I think these precedents are troubling.…1 / 2
-
Lissette Perez v. Am. Med., Inc., 842 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…., Gary v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 838 So. 2d 1251 (Fla. 2d 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., conc…
-
Glenn v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 731 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…enege on the understanding and, based thereon, charge the employee with misconduct.”). The Department’s decision later on to insist on certification amounted to a unilateral change in his contract of employment, see Andino v. Lantana Partners, Ltd., 692 So. 2d 945, 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), unrelated to the actual performance of his duties. Reversed and remanded. PADOVANO, J., CONCURS. DAVIS, . J., DISSENTING WITH OPINION.…
Authorities Cited
- Stahl v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 502 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Carey McANALLY & Co., Inc. v. Woodring, 629 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)