GLENDER J. CURRAS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, ET AL., 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.
The court held that an employer substantially and unilaterally altering employment terms, making the commute impossible, provides good cause for an employee to quit.
An employee was allowed to use a company vehicle for his commute, but the employer later restricted its use, preventing the employee from reaching wor…
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 Good Cause Attributable To Employer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Glender Curras appeals from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the denial of his application for unemployment compensation benefits. For the following reasons, we reverse.
Curras worked as a driver for an auto parts business in Broward County and lived in Dade County. As a term of his employment, he was allowed to use a company vehicle to go back and forth from home to work. His employer later informed him that the company vehicle could no longer be driven beyond a stated area; that area did not include Curras’ home. For two or three weeks Curras tried to commute to work but found it impossible, and informed his employer that he was forced to look for another job because he no longer had a way to get to work.
Curras’ application for unemployment compensation benefits was denied on the ground that he quit his job without good cause attributable to his employer. The appeals referee affirmed. We reverse, as the employer substantially and unilaterally altered the terms of the agreement under which Curras accepted employment, giving Curras good cause to quit. See Amato v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 648 So. 2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Cf. Coolaire Nordic Int'l, Corp. v. Florida Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Employment Sec., 356 So. 2d 1317, 1318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (holding that where employer initially provided transportation to employees but then gave six months notice that free transportation would be terminated and all employees would have to make their own transportation arrangements, termination of transportation was not an alteration of the contract of claimant’s employment and claimant did not quit for good cause attributable to his employer).
Reversed and remanded with directions to afford the claimant the full amount of benefits claimed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guillen v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n & Republic Servs. of Fla., 103 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ork for Republic over the past years. Good cause to quit is established when “the employer substantially and unilaterally altered the terms of the agreement under which [the employee] accepted employment.” Curras v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 841 So. 2d 673, 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); accord Wilson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 604 So. 2d 1274, 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The appeals referee concluded, under his “conclusions of law,” that Mr. Guillen had failed to establish that “the working conditio…
-
Alleyn v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n & Alphastaff 2 Inc., 169 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ntial change to an employee’s terms and conditions of employment may constitute good cause for the employee to quit. See, e.g., Ogle v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 87 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Curras v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 841 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Tourte v. Oriole of Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Wilson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 604 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). It pointed out, however, that an employer is nonetheless entitled to change an…
Authorities Cited
- Amato v. State, 648 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Coolaire Nordic Int'l Corp. v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 356 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)