DAVID A. FERGUSON, APPELLANT,
v.
HENRY LEE COMPANY AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1999-06-09
No. 99-34
Before GERSTEN, GODERICH, and SORONDO, JJ.
734 So. 2d 1161 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

Ferguson quit his job when his employer unilaterally changed his work schedule from four days to five days per week, removing the primary incentive that induced him to accept the position. The court reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's denial of benefits, holding that the appeals referee's determination of good cause was supported by substantial competent evidence.

Holding

Ferguson is entitled to unemployment benefits. An employee has good cause to leave employment when the average, able-bodied, qualified worker would quit under similar circumstances. The appeals referee's finding that removing the primary incentive for the job constituted good cause was supported by substantial competent evidence, and the UAC lacked authority to overturn it.

Headnotes

[1] An employee is entitled to unemployment benefits when they leave their job for good cause attributable to their employer.

[2] Good cause for leaving employment is defined as circumstances that would impel the average, able-bodied, qualified worker to give up their employment.

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
Key Quotes

“An employee is entitled to unemployment benefits when he leaves his job for good cause attributable to his employer.”

Establishes the fundamental standard for unemployment benefits eligibility

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Ferguson accepted a computer operator position with Henry Lee Co. on July 28, 1997, specifically on a four-day work week schedule designed to fill a s…

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.

Topics
Good Cause For Leaving Employment Unemployment Benefits Eligibility Termination Of Employment Eligibility

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Good Cause For Leaving Employment cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

David A. Ferguson (“Ferguson”) challenges an Unemployment Appeals Commission (“UAC”) order reversing an appeals referee’s determination that Ferguson is entitled to unemployment benefits. Because the UAC improperly reweighed the evidence presented before the referee, we reverse,

Ferguson accepted a position with Henry Lee Co. (“employer”) as a computer operator on July 28, 1997. He quit this job on April 2, 1998 after the employer changed his work schedule from a four-day week to a five-day week. Ferguson sought unemployment compensation but his claim was initially denied. He appealed this denial and obtained a hearing before an appeals referee.

The appeals referee found that the employer had a hard time filling Ferguson’s shift because the shift required unusual work hours; that in order to induce someone to accept the unusual hours, the employer was required to offer a four-day work week, and; that Ferguson accepted the employer’s four-days per week offer and eventually quit because the employer increased the number of days he was required to work. The referee concluded that Ferguson had “good cause” for leaving his job and awarded him unemployment benefits.

The UAC reversed on the ground that the employer was justified in changing the terms and conditions of Ferguson’s employment. The UAC cited to the referee’s finding that the employer, by way 'of a written general policy, reserved the right to change any employee’s work schedule. This policy was contained in the employee’s handbook which Ferguson received.

Th.e fact that the employer could change Ferguson’s schedule without fearing a breach of contract action, however, is not controlling here. See Tourte v. Oriole of Naples, Inp., 696 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). An employee is entitled to unemployment benefits when he leaves his job for good cause attributable to his employer. See § 443.101(1)(a), Fla. Stat (1997). “Good cause” is defined as “those circumstances which would impel the average, able bodied, qualified worker to give up employment.” See Tourte v. Oriole of Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d at 1285; Uniweld Prod., Inc. v. Industrial Relations Comm’n, 277 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

Here, the appeals referee determined that the average, able bodied, qualified worker would quit his job if put in Ferguson’s position. The UAC could only overturn this determination if it was not supported by substantial competent evidence, See Kan v. P.G. Cook Assoc., 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Supporting the referee’s “good cause” determination was the fact that the employer removed the primary incentive for working Ferguson’s shift. This meets the substantial competent evidence standard. See e.g. Tourte v. Oriole of Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d at 1285-86; Livingston v. Tucker Constr. & Eng’g, Inc., 656 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Kan v. P.G. Cook Assoc., 566 So. 2d at 934.

Because the referee’s decision was supported by substantial competent evidence, the UAC was without authority to deny Ferguson his benefits. See San Roman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 711 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA); Grossman v. Jewish Community Ctr. of Greater Ft. Lauderdale, Inc., 704 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Smith v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Kan v. P.G. Cook Assoc., 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Johnston v. Homeowners Warehouse, Inc., 654 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accordingly, the UAC’s order is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the referee’s decision. See Smith v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Forkey & Kirsch, P.A. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 407 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Manning v. State of Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 787 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
    …greement. The employer’s right to change the conditions of employment is relevant to whether a breach of the employment contract occurred, but is not relevant to the employee’s entitlement to unemployment compensation. See Ferguson v. Henry Lee Co., 734 So. 2d 1161, 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Consistent with these cases, we reverse and remand for the appeals referee to consider whether the reduction in Manning’s hours was substantial enough to constitute “good cause attributable to the employer.” POLEN, GROS…
  • Lissette Perez v. Am. Med., Inc., 842 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
    …So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Here, the appeals referee found Ms. Tourte’s actions reasonable and proper. Tourte, 696 So. 2d at 1286. Accord, e.g., 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 thes…
  • Kelly v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 823 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
    …cause attributable to the employer); LeCroy v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 654 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that a 5% decrease in pay was good cause for leaving employment attributable to an employer). . See Ferguson v. Henry Lee Co., 734 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that because the referee's findings were supported by substantial, competent evidence and the Commission was not authorized to disregard them, the Commission's order must be reversed and the cause remanded to reinstate th…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw