NANCY P. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Smith appealed the denial of unemployment benefits after she accepted a voluntary severance package from her employer. The court affirmed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's determination that Smith voluntarily quit without good cause attributable to her employer, disqualifying her from benefits.
Smith was not entitled to unemployment benefits because the appeals referee determined she voluntarily quit her job without good cause attributable to her employer. Although an employee's acceptance of a severance package does not necessarily bar unemployment compensation, the employee must establish that she was faced with certain discharge or loss of job in any event, which Smith failed to prove.
[1] An employee who voluntarily leaves work without good cause attributable to the employer is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
[2] Whether an employee left employment voluntarily and whether the leaving was without good cause are questions of fact.
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“An employee who voluntarily leaves work without good cause attributable to his or her employer is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.”
Establishes the legal standard for disqualification from unemployment benefits under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith worked for Walt Disney World Hospitality Recreation Corporation as a resort/guest services manager from December 1988 through June 2001, when sh…
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 Quit cases and more on FLexlaw
Smith appeals from a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission, af firming the appeals referee’s determination that she was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. Smith failed to furnish this court with a transcript of the hearing before the appeals referee.1 We affirm.
Smith worked for Walt Disney World Hospitality Recreation Corporation as a resort/guest services manager from December 1988 through June 2001, when she accepted a severance package and left employment. She applied for unemployment benefits. They were denied. She appealed and a hearing was held before the appeals referee.
The appeals referee concluded that Smith voluntarily quit her job in order to participate in her employer’s “voluntary separation program.” The referee made the following fact-finding and legal conclusion:
At the time that the claimant chose to participate in the voluntary separation program, the claimant had not been advised that she was being laid off. Continuing work was available to the claimant. Although the separation package might have been attractive, in the absence of explicit notice of layoff, it has not been shown that the claimant left work with good cause attributable to the employer within the meaning of the law.
An employee who voluntarily leaves work without good cause attributable to his or her employer is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. § 44S.101(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001). Whether an employee left employment voluntarily and whether the leaving was without good cause are questions of fact. Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 820 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In some circumstances, an employee’s acceptance of a severance package on leaving employment does not bar unemployment compensation. See LeCroy v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 654 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). However, the claimant must establish facts to show the employee was faced with certain discharge or loss of job in any event. The appeals referee held that Smith had failed to prove these circumstances.
The appeals referee’s determinations of fact are presumed correct and it is impossible for Smith to establish error without a transcript. McGill v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 821 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Fryburg v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 799 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur. . Apparently neither party complied with the rules governing preparation and preservation of the record.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parker v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 41 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…her he did so without good cause are questions of fact. Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 820 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). An appeal referee’s factual determinations are ordinarily presumed to be correct. Smith v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 823 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Thus, if there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the appeal referee’s findings, and in particular the finding that Parker abandoned his job without good cause, this court must affirm. Brown, 820 So. 2d a…
-
Fillmore v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & La Petite Acad. Inc., 873 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…n that appellant left her employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer, appellant was properly disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. See § 443.101(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002); Smith v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 823 So. 2d 873, 874 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accordingly, the ruling of the UAC is AFFIRMED. BROWNING, J., concurs; ERVIN, J., dissents with written opinion.…
-
Cunningham v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 834 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…on in a particular case is a question of fact. Haendel v. Paterno, 388 So. 2d 235 (Fla. [*337] 5th DCA 1980). Without a transcript,1 Cunningham cannot establish that a finding on this issue is erroneous. See Smith v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 823 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (appeals referee’s determinations of fact are presumed correct and it is impossible for a claimant to establish error without a transcript); Fryburg v. Unemployment Appeals Commission 799 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (where foc…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- LeCROY v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & United Tel. Co. of Fla., 654 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Steele v. Moore, 820 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Gale L. Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 820 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Fryburg v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 799 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- McGILL v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 821 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)