Bell v. Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bell v. Commission

645 So. 2d 152, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11158, 1994 WL 645773

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1994

DocketNo. 94-652

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 645 So. 2d 152 (Bell v. Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Commission, 645 So. 2d 152, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11158, 1994 WL 645773 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Appellant, Robin M. Bell, appearing pro se, has appealed an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming a referee’s decision denying her unemployment compensation on the ground she voluntarily terminated her employment.

Bell was employed by Longwood International Travel as a receptionist in 1991. She was subsequently promoted to an administrative position. On October 15, 1993, Bell’s employment was terminated. The reason for the termination was a disputed issue. She claims that the office manager informed her that the office receptionist was going to be “laid off’ and that Bell might be called upon to perform the receptionist’s job, as well as her own. Bell suggests that her response was to tell her employer that she was looking for another job, whereupon the employer fired her instead of the receptionist and told her to report to the unemployment office. The personnel manager, on the other hand, testified that she informed the claimant that other employees would be transferring to that office and that she was going to let the receptionist go. Bell responded that she did not think the receptionist could find another job and since she was already looking for other work, she asked to be laid off instead. The referee expressly resolved the factual conflicts in the evidence in favor of the employer “based on the candor and demeanor of witnesses.” Where the findings of fact of an appeals referee in an employment compensation case are supported by substantial competent evidence, this court is not in a position to overturn them. Given the facts found by the referee, we find no legal error and affirm.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Appellant, Robin M. Bell, appearing pro se, has appealed an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming a referee’s decision denying her unemployment compensation on the ground she voluntarily terminated her employment.

Bell was employed by Longwood International Travel as a receptionist in 1991. She was subsequently promoted to an administrative position. On October 15, 1993, Bell’s employment was terminated. The reason for the termination was a disputed issue. She claims that the office manager informed her that the office receptionist was going to be “laid off’ and that Bell might be called upon to perform the receptionist’s job, as well as her own. Bell suggests that her response was to tell her employer that she was looking for another job, whereupon the employer fired her instead of the receptionist and told her to report to the unemployment office. The personnel manager, on the other hand, testified that she informed the claimant that other employees would be transferring to that office and that she was going to let the receptionist go. Bell responded that she did not think the receptionist could find another job and since she was already looking for other work, she asked to be laid off instead. The referee expressly resolved the factual conflicts in the evidence in favor of the employer “based on the candor and demeanor of witnesses.” Where the findings of fact of an appeals referee in an employment compensation case are supported by substantial competent evidence, this court is not in a position to overturn them. Given the facts found by the referee, we find no legal error and affirm.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 So. 2d 152, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 11158, 1994 WL 645773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-commission-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack