GONZALO VELILLA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAMS ISLAND, A PRIVATE CLUB, LTD., AND THE 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.
Velilla's unemployment benefits denial was reversed because the appeals referee's finding that he voluntarily quit was based on inadmissible hearsay contradicting his direct testimony that he was fired.
A factual finding that an employee voluntarily quit, based on hearsay testimony contradicting the employee's direct testimony, cannot support a denial of unemployment benefits.
[1] A finding that an employee voluntarily quit employment cannot be based on hearsay evidence that directly contradicts the employee's uncontradicted direct testimony regard…
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 intelligence“Because it is based upon pure hearsay which is directly contrary to the only direct testimony on the point, the factual conclusion that the appellant voluntarily left his employment and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits cannot stand.”
Court's explanation for why the appeals referee's finding was erroneous and must be reversed.
Velilla, a restaurant busser, left his employment after a conversation with his employer's labor counselor. Velilla testified he was fired, while anot…
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 Unemployment Benefits Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Velilla left his employment as a restaurant busser after a conversation with a labor “counselor” for his employer. Velilla testified that the counselor fired him. Another employee stated that she had been told by the counselor that Velilla quit. The counsel-or did not testify. Nonetheless, the appeals referee found that the appellant had “voluntarily quit his position” and the unemployment appeals commission affirmed the denial of benefits on that ground.
Because it is based upon pure hearsay which is directly contrary to the only direct testimony on the point, the factual conclusion that the appellant voluntarily left his employment and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits cannot stand. Spicer v. Metro. Dade County, 458 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and cases cited; Campbell v. Cent. Fla. Zoological Soc’y, 432 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); City of Fort Lauderdale v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 536 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). On this record, the referee was bound to find that Velilla had been involuntarily discharged and was therefore entitled to the benefits claimed. See Gulf County Sch. Bd. v. Washington, 567 So. 2d 420 (Fla.1990). Accordingly the order below is reversed with directions to grant him those benefits.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. OF Greater Miami, Inc. v. Rosalia Gonzalez, 98 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ourt may not rely only on hearsay evidence to find a violation of community control.”); Perry v. Bradshaw, 43 So. 3d 180,181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[T]he trial court erred in relying on nothing but inadmissible hearsay.”); Velilla v. Williams Island, 705 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (rejecting finding “based upon pure hearsay which is directly contrary to the only direct testimony on the point”), this evidence is also markedly deficient. This is because while the report says that the accident occurred a…
-
Garcia v. Wolf IN the Woods, Inc., 37 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…t, (that Garcia was told to leave the company and not to return) the factual conclusion that the appellant voluntarily left his employment and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits cannot stand.” Velilla v. Williams Island, 705 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The record is devoid of evidence to show that Garcia voluntarily left the job, as the unrebutted non-hearsay testimony established that he was told to leave and not to come back. The employer failed to meet its burden of de…
Authorities Cited
- Gulf Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Washington, 567 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1990)
- City OF Fort Lauderdale v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Vernon L. Moody, 536 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Campbell v. Cent. Fla. Zoological Soc'y & Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 432 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Gregory v. State, 458 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)