RACHEL LAKEY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, 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 reversed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's disqualification of benefits for an employee who quit one job for better pay and was later laid off without cause, holding that voluntary resignation for economic reasons does not disqualify subsequent unemployment benefits eligibility.
An employee who voluntarily resigns from one job to accept better-paying employment is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits when subsequently terminated without good cause from the new position.
[1] Voluntary resignation from employment to accept better-paying work does not disqualify an employee from receiving unemployment compensation benefits upon subsequent termi…
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 intelligenceRachel Lakey worked for Cracker Barrel from November to December 1, 2008, then resigned to accept a higher-paying position with the Peabody Hotel on t…
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
Rachel Lakey appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming an appeals referee’s decision determining her to be disqualified from the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. Ms. Lakey was employed by Cracker Barrel from November of 2008 until December 1, 2008. She resigned her job with Cracker Barrel and began employment with the Peabody Hotel on December 1, 2008, because it offered better pay. When she was laid off from her position with the Peabody Hotel, she filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits.
The Agency for Workforce Innovation issued a determination that Ms. Lakey was ineligible because her reason for quitting her position with Cracker Barrel was not attributable to Cracker Barrel. The appeals referee affirmed this determination, and the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed the decision of the appeals referee. But nothing in the statute provides that leaving one job in order to take a better paying job disqualifies an employee later terminated without good cause from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. In recent cases, the Commission has conceded as much. See Wible v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 40 So.3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). See also Doig v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 862 So.2d 76, 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). We reverse the final order and remand the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Doig v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Sears Roebuck & Co., 862 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Wible v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 40 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)