KATHLEEN C. ROBINSON, PETITIONER,
v.
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the Industrial Relations Commission's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to a woman who took an employer-approved maternity leave and was subsequently terminated due to economic conditions. The court held that termination for economic reasons following an approved maternity leave does not constitute a voluntary departure without good cause attributable to the employer.
The court held that Robinson did not voluntarily leave her employment without good cause attributable to her employer. The court determined that her employment was terminated for economic reasons and cutbacks stated by the employer, not for reasons related to the maternity leave, and therefore she is entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits.
[1] An employee who is terminated due to economic conditions and employee cutbacks following an employer-approved maternity leave of absence did not voluntarily leave employm…
[2] An employer-approved maternity leave of absence does not, in itself, alter the circumstances of an employee's subsequent termination due to economic reasons.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the maternity leave, approved as it was by the employer, has no bearing upon the issue. In our judgment her employment was terminated for the reason stated by the employer, '. . . due to economic conditions and a cut back in employees. . . .'”
Establishes the court's holding that the maternity leave is irrelevant to the termination analysis; the controlling factor is the employer's stated reason for termination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson was employed by Hertz since June 1969. She became pregnant and worked until her ninth month of pregnancy, then applied for a maternity leave …
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 Unemployment Compensation Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Chief Judge.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari, addressed to a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission which denied petitioner’s claim for unemployment compensation. We grant the petition, quash the order under review, and remand with instructions to grant petitioner unemployment compensation benefits.
We employ the facts found in the letter from the employer, Hertz, to the Department of Commerce:
“Mrs. Robinson was employed by Hertz since June, 1969. She became pregnant and worked until her ninth month of pregnancy. After following proper Hertz procedure, she applied for a Maternity Leave of Absence, with all intentions of returning to work three months after the birth of her child.
“Before she left her position, we transferred another employee to cover Mrs. Robinson’s position during her leave. Several days prior to September 26, 1974, I requested that Mrs. Robinson begin her leave since she had properly trained her replacement and I felt she was too far along in her pregnancy to continue working.
“Again, following proper Hertz procedure, at the termination of her Leave of Absence, she requested to return to work. At the time of Mrs. Robinson’s request to return to work, due to economic conditions and a cutback in employees, we could not reemploy Mrs. Robinson. At this time we gave her notice that she had been terminated.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing is in exact accord with the testimony given in the administrative proceeding.
Regardless of this record, the Appeals Referee found:
"... record and evidence of the instant case clearly show that the claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause attributable to the employer, within the meaning of the law set forth above. Claimant discontinued work after September 26, 1974, for personal reasons due to her pregnancy. Accordingly, the claimant should be disqualified from receiving benefits.”
The question is:
Whether an employee who is terminated by her employer because of economic conditions eliminating available jobs following an employer-approved maternity leave of absence has “voluntarily left her employment without good cause attributable to her employer” within the meaning of Florida Statute 443.06(1) (1973)?
It is our view that the maternity leave, approved as it was by the employer, has no bearing upon the issue. In our judgment her employment was terminated for the reason stated by the employer, “. . . due to economic conditions and a cut back in employees. . . . ”
And so we hold that petitioner did not voluntarily leave her employment without good cause attributable to her employer. Thus, she is entitled to receive unemployment compensation. See Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor, 253 La. 519, 211 So. 2d 634 (La.1968); Western Electric Company, Inc. v. Director of Division of Employment Security, 340 Mass. 190, 163 N.E. 2d 154 (Mass.1960).
We record that Respondents waived their right to file a brief and thereby we were not given the benefit of their views and rationale in justification of the reviewed order. Certiorari is granted, the order is quashed, and the cause remanded with instructions to grant Petitioner unemployment compensation benefits.
PETITION GRANTED, with instructions.
DOWNEY, J., and LEE, THOMAS E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monsanto Co. v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 371 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…*595] Clearly, the evidence showed that Ms. Howard was not able to work during the period of her company-approved maternity leave. Therefore, she was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Robinson v. Industrial Relations Commission, 329 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), relied upon by the appeals referee, is inap-posite to the present case. Therein, the court determined that an employee, terminated due to economic conditions following an employer-approved maternity leave, had not voluntarily le…
-
Fisher v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 333 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…r approved maternity leave; therefore petitioner did not voluntarily leave her employment without good cause attributable to her employer thus entitling her to receive unemployment benefits. See Robinson v. Industrial Relations Commission, Fla.App., 329 So. 2d 401, opinion filed March 26, 1976. This court’s recent decision in Robinson, supra, involved a situation markedly similar to the instant case and we are of the opinion that the rationale and conclusion in Robinson is applicable here. Accordingly, the pe…
-
Swavely v. Indus. Relations Comm'n, 345 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…oyment without good cause attributable to her employer within the meaning of Section 443.-06(1), Florida Statutes (1975). This precise question has already been considered and answered in the negative in Robinson v. Industrial Relations Commission, 329 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) and Fisher v. State of Fla. Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Employment Security, 333 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). We find the holdings in these two cases are controlling and, therefore, grant the petition for writ of certiorari, qu…