NORMAN L. REMBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
INTERIM PERSONNEL, INC., AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES

Fla. 2d DCA | 1999-09-08
No. 99-00021
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
745 So. 2d 993 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 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

Norman Rembert challenged the denial of his unemployment compensation benefits after he voluntarily left a temporary job in New York to return to Florida and collect benefits there. The court held that while Rembert quit without good cause, he is not totally barred from benefits but rather entitled to receive benefits reduced by his temporary employment earnings.


Holding

The court affirmed that Rembert left his temporary position without good cause attributable to the employer, but reversed the total denial of benefits. Instead, Rembert should be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits reduced by the amount attributable to his temporary employment earnings.


Headnotes

[1] A claimant who voluntarily leaves a temporary, part-time job without good cause attributable to the employer does not forfeit all unemployment compensation benefits.

[2] Unemployment compensation claims must be individually considered based on the termination of employment from each job, whether full-time, part-time, or temporary.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

“a claimant does not totally forfeit the right to receive unemployment compensation benefits when he or she leaves a temporary, part-time job without good cause”

Establishes the key legal principle that total forfeiture is inappropriate for temporary employment voluntarily abandoned

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

Rembert is a seasonal employee for Sun Pac Company who is laid off each summer and collects unemployment benefits from July until October. After being…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Norman L. Rembert challenges the Unemployment Appeals Commission’s (UAC) ruling upholding the appeals referee’s de-cisión to deny him unemployment compensation benefits. We agree with Rembert that the UAC erred in denying his unemployment compensation benefits, and we reverse that denial.

Rembert is a seasonal employee for Sun Pac Company, and he is temporarily laid off from that job each summer. Rembert’s unemployment compensation benefit year begins on July 1st, and he usually collects unemployment benefits from that date until he is called back to work in October. After Rembert was laid off on May 15, 1998, he went to Rochester, New York, to visit his mother. While there, he worked for Interim Personnel, Inc. (Interim), which provided temporary work assignments. Rembert worked several temporary assignments. Prior to his last assignment, Rembert informed Interim that he would not be able to complete the full term of the assignment because he intended to return to Florida.

In July of 1998, Rembert stopped reporting for work at his temporary assignment in New York and returned to Florida. When Rembert left New York, there was still additional work available to him.

After Rembert returned to Florida, he received unemployment compensation benefits for July and August of 1998. He then received notification that he was disqualified from benefits for voluntarily leaving his temporary job without good cause attributable to the employer. The appeals referee concluded that Rembert left his temporary position for wholly personal reasons unattributable to the employer. The UAC upheld that determination.

The record on appeal reflects that Rem-bert only intended to work in New York until it was time for him to collect unemployment compensation benefits in Florida. Under these circumstances, we believe the UAC was correct in determining that he quit his employment without good cause attributable to the employer, and we affirm that portion of the UAC’s decision. However, the UAC erred in concluding that Rembert totally forfeited his right to receive unemployment compensation benefits. In Berger v. Asolo Center for the Performing Arts, Inc., 686 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), this court determined that a claimant does not totally forfeit the right to receive unemployment compensation benefits when he or she leaves a temporary, part-time job without good cause. In Berger, the claimant was terminated from her full-time job. The claimant subsequently obtained a temporary, part-time job; however, she quit the job three days later.

This court agreed with the UAC’s determination that the claimant left her job under disqualifying circumstances; however, we ruled that the claimant was still entitled to some portion of her unemployment compensation benefits. See id. at 650. Our holding was based on the cases of Neese v. Sizzler Family Steak House, 404 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and Alderman v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 664 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). See id. at 650-51. Specifically, we concurred with the fifth district’s reasoning in Alderman, which follows:

In our view, a more reasonable interpretation of the amended statute is that the UAC is required to individually consider unemployment compensation claims based on the termination of employment for each job, whether it be full-time, part-time, or temporary. This interpretation would mean that, to the extent a worker holding multiple jobs left any job voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer, there would be a reduction in benefits but not a total forfeiture of benefits.

Alderman, 664 So. 2d at 1162. Thus, in accordance with our holding in Berger, we conclude that the UAC erred in denying Rembert unemployment compensation benefits.

Accordingly, Rembert’s unemployment compensation benefits should not be entirely forfeited, but instead he should be ineligible for further benefits only to the extent that his benefits would have been decreased by virtue of his temporary employment earnings.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …994); Berger v. Asolo Ctr., 686 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Bomar v. Rolling in Dough Cookie Co., 715 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Milkolsky v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 721 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Rembert v. Interim Personnel, Inc., 745 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Groudas, 793 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). As this court succinctly stated in Tier-ney: To deny benefits to an individual in appellant’s position would not further the legislative purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Law —…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw