GABRIEL V. ASTENGO, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed denial of unemployment benefits to employee who voluntarily quit without receiving a promised salary increase, holding that a vague "when the budget allows" response does not constitute a specific promise of salary increase that would constitute good cause for resignation.
An employee who voluntarily quits employment based on a vague, non-specific promise of a salary increase ("when the budget allows") is disqualified from unemployment benefits because the departure is not for good cause attributable to the employer.
[1] An employee who voluntarily resigns based on a vague, non-specific promise of a salary increase (such as "when the budget allows") lacks good cause attributable to the em…
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“Where an employee leaves his employment because he has not received a raise in salary to which he feels entitled, but which was never unequivocally promised to him by the employer, his departure cannot be considered "for good cause attributable to the employer."”
Court's statement of the legal standard for voluntary resignation without good cause attributable to employer.
Gabriel Astengo requested a salary increase from his employer at Miami Behavioral Health Center and received only a vague response that a raise would …
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 Voluntary Resignation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gabriel Astengo appeals a final order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming a decision of an appeals referee which denied Astengo’s claim for unemployment compensation. The referee denied the claim upon a finding that As-tengo was disqualified from receiving benefits because he voluntarily quit his employment without good cause attributable to his employer. See § 443.101(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000).
We have reviewed the record made before the referee and agree with the Unemployment Appeals Commission that the denial of benefits to Astengo under the circumstances of his resignation from his employment was proper. Where an employee leaves his employment because he has not received a raise in salary to which he feels entitled, but which was never unequivocally promised to him by the employer, his departure cannot be considered “for good cause attributable to the employer.” See Arredondo v. Jackson Mem. Hosp., 412 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
But cf. Kralj v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 537 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)(where a specific salary increase was promised to go into effect at a certain time, but that time passed without the increase, employee left employment for good cause attributable to employer).
Here, the evidence of record shows only that Astengo was given a vague “when the budget allows” response to his salary increase requests. He was not promised a specific salary increase to go into effect at a specific time, and the appeals referee’s decision denying him benefits is supported by substantial, competent evidence. The Commission properly affirmed the referee’s decision.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Karger v. Career City Coll., Inc., 862 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…ed a raise in salary to which he feels entitled, but [*924] which was never unequivocally promised to him by the employer, his departure cannot be considered ‘for good cause attributable to the employer.’ ” Astengo v. Miami Behavioral Health Center, 774 So. 2d 803, 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (citations omitted). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Piper v. State, 537 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Kralj v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Coca-Cola Co., 537 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Lunford v. State, 412 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Arredondo v. Jackson Mem'l Hosp. & Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 412 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)