POLLYANNE RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ARBY'S, INC., AND 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.
Rodriguez was terminated by Arby's after failing to return from maternity leave on an expected date. The Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission denied her unemployment benefits, finding she voluntarily left employment. The court reversed, holding that Arby's failed to notify Rodriguez of clear terms for the approved leave and therefore her absence did not constitute a voluntary departure.
The court held that when an employer fails to notify an employee of clear terms for an approved leave of absence, including an expected return date, the employee's subsequent absence does not support a finding that the employee voluntarily left employment. Therefore, the employee is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
[1] An employee's absence from work following an approved leave of absence cannot support a finding that the employee voluntarily left employment for unemployment compensatio…
[2] An employer has a duty to inform an employee of the acceptable terms of a leave of absence, including the expected date of return, before terminating employment for absen…
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“When an employer fails to notify its employee that a leave of absence from employment is not acceptable and such failure leads the employee to believe the leave is excused, the employee's absence cannot support a finding that the employee voluntarily left employment for purpose of unemployment compensation benefits.”
Establishes the primary legal rule that employers must clearly communicate unacceptable leave terms to avoid finding of voluntary departure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez worked as a manager at Arby's and took approved disability leave on September 16, 1996, due to her pregnancy. Arby's supervisor expected her…
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 Appeal Of Unemployment Benefits Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Pollyanne Rodriguez appeals the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission’s decision to deny her unemployment compensation benefits based on a finding that she voluntarily left her employment at Arby’s without good cause. Because the record does not support such a finding, we reverse.
Rodriguez was employed as a manager at an Arby’s Restaurant and worked full-time until the due date of her pregnancy. She left work on an approved disability leave on September 16, 1996. Arby’s admits that no agreement was reached as to the exact date Rodriguez was to return to work. Based on information contained in a letter received by Arby’s from Rodriguez’s doctor, the Arby’s supervisor testified he expected Rodriguez to return to work on November 18. She failed to return on that date. On November 22, the supervisor sent Rodriguez a certified letter stating: “I will complete a separation report noting 11/17/96 as your last day of employment with Arby’s Inc. as you have failed to return from your leave of absence.”
Rodriguez’s original determination letter from the Florida Department of Labor indicated she was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits because she was discharged for a reason other than misconduct. Arby’s appealed. The only testimony and evidence submitted at the unemployment appeals hearing was from Rodriguez’s supervisor, who testified he discharged Rodriguez for her failure to keep him apprised of the status of her leave and when she would re turn to work. Rodriguez did not appear at the hearing. The unemployment appeals referee concluded Rodriguez voluntarily left employment at Arby’s without good cause.
Arby’s right to terminate Rodriguez is not at issue. See Keays v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 592 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In this ease, as in Keays, the appeals referee concluded the claimant voluntarily left employment and therefore unemployment compensation benefits were not available. That conclusion is not supported by the record before us.
When an employer fails to notify its employee that a leave of absence from employment is not acceptable and such failure leads the employee to believe the leave is excused, the employee’s absence cannot support a finding that the employee voluntarily left employment for purpose of unemployment compensation benefits. See Meyers v. Quality Extruded Prods., Inc., 611 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The employer has a duty to inform the employee of acceptable terms of leave; when the employer fails to inform the employee of the expected date of return, absence does not support a finding that the employee voluntarily left employment. See Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Arby’s did not make it clear to Rodriguez that she must either return to work or quit. See Keays, 592 So. 2d at 1255 (“the claimant should be notified that continued absence is unacceptable, and the employee should be given a choice of termination or of returning to work”). Because Arby’s failed to inform Rodriguez of clear terms for the approved leave of absence before terminating her employment, the UAC erred by finding she voluntarily left employment. The UAC’s decision is reversed and Rodriguez’s unemployment compensation reinstated.
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 763 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…not entitled to unemployment benefits. 442 So. 2d at 269. Like the claimant in Nofrio, King left for his trip to the United Kingdom “without an explicit understanding and assurance that h[is] job [would] remain open.” Cf. Rodriguez v. Arby’s Inc., 709 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing denial of benefits where claimant left work on an approved disability leave). The record supports the referee’s determination that King “voluntarily left his ... work without good cause attributable to his ... employin…
-
Fillmore v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & La Petite Acad. Inc., 873 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…usable, the worker’s absence cannot support a finding that he or she voluntarily left employment without good cause attributable to the employer so as to preclude the payment of unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. See Rodriguez v. Arby’s, Inc., 709 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Meyers v. Quality Extruded Prods., Inc., 611 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Keays v. State Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 592 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The abov…
-
Wisely v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & World Team Rests., Inc., 78 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…fails to inform the employee of the expected date of return, absence does not support a finding that the employee vol [*120] untarily left employment. See Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Rodriguez v. Arby’s, Inc., 709 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Thus, it was not incumbent on Claimant to set a specific return date. Because her supervisor failed to inform Claimant of the terms of the approved leave before terminating her, the UAC erred in concluding that Claimant volu…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Keays v. The State OF Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 592 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Sanford Meyers v. Quality Extruded Prods., Inc., 611 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)