JOSE A. MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION AND DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 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.
A bus driver for Miami-Dade County schools was properly denied reemployment assistance benefits for the summer period because he had reasonable assurance of rehire for the upcoming school year under Florida law.
An employee with reasonable assurance of rehire for the upcoming school year is ineligible for reemployment assistance benefits during the intervening summer period.
[1] Reasonable assurance of rehire for the upcoming school year renders an employee ineligible for reemployment assistance benefits during the intervening period, even absent…
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 intelligenceMartinez, a bus driver for Miami-Dade County schools, applied for reemployment assistance benefits for the summer following the 2011-12 school year. 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 Seasonal Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, a bus driver for the Miami-Dade County school district, appeals a final order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission (RAAC) denying his claim for reemployment assistance benefits for the summer period following the 2011-12 school year. The appeals referee determined that Appellant was ineligible for benefits because he had “reasonable assurance [*] ... that he would be rehired for the upcoming school year.” The record contains competent substantial evidence to support this factual finding, and based on this finding, the referee and the RAAC correctly concluded as a matter of law that Appellant was ineligible for benefits. See § 443.091(3)(b), (3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012); Brown v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 81 So.3d 646, 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“We decline the invitation to interpret ‘reasonable assurance’ to mean [the appellant] must be guaranteed teaching assignments to be ineligible for benefits”). Accordingly, we affirm the final order.
AFFIRMED.
BENTON, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Margarette R. Brown v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Hillsborough Cnty. Sch. Bd., 81 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)