Furlott v. Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Furlott v. Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security

386 So. 2d 274, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16234

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1210

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 386 So. 2d 274 (Furlott v. Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security) 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

Furlott v. Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security, 386 So. 2d 274, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16234 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

HOBSON, Judge.

An unemployment compensation appeals referee held that Murial H. Furlott, the petitioner, voluntarily left her employment with the law firm of Fox & Rahter, without good cause attributed to the employer. The referee found that Furlott was not, therefore, entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Upon review, the unemployment appeals commission affirmed the referee and adopted his decision. Because we find the decision is not supported by competent substantial evidence, we grant Furlott’s petition for review and remand this case with directions to enter an order allowing Furlott’s claim.

The referee’s decision was based upon findings that Furlott had left her employer for personal reasons and that there was continued work available for Furlott with her employer. The uncontroverted evidence, however, establishes that Furlott was the personal secretary of Ronald E. Fox, the senior partner in Fox & Rahter. Fox decided to withdraw from the firm, and a meeting was held between Fox, Fur-lott, and J. Richard Rahter, the remaining partner. During this meeting it was established that Fox was leaving the firm. Rahter, as the remaining partner, advised Furlott that the sooner she left the better. Additionally, during the examination of Rahter by the referee, the referee questioned Rahter as to whether there was work available for Furlott. Rahter did not directly answer the question, but simply stated that he “would not have kept her.”

There is no support in the record for the referee’s decision. To the contrary, the evidence clearly establishes that Furlott is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. We grant Furlott’s petition for review and set aside the order of the commission. The case is remanded with directions to enter an order allowing the benefits.

GRIMES, C. J., and OTT, J., concur.

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

HOBSON, Judge.

An unemployment compensation appeals referee held that Murial H. Furlott, the petitioner, voluntarily left her employment with the law firm of Fox & Rahter, without good cause attributed to the employer. The referee found that Furlott was not, therefore, entitled to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Upon review, the unemployment appeals commission affirmed the referee and adopted his decision. Because we find the decision is not supported by competent substantial evidence, we grant Furlott’s petition for review and remand this case with directions to enter an order allowing Furlott’s claim.

The referee’s decision was based upon findings that Furlott had left her employer for personal reasons and that there was continued work available for Furlott with her employer. The uncontroverted evidence, however, establishes that Furlott was the personal secretary of Ronald E. Fox, the senior partner in Fox & Rahter. Fox decided to withdraw from the firm, and a meeting was held between Fox, Fur-lott, and J. Richard Rahter, the remaining partner. During this meeting it was established that Fox was leaving the firm. Rahter, as the remaining partner, advised Furlott that the sooner she left the better. Additionally, during the examination of Rahter by the referee, the referee questioned Rahter as to whether there was work available for Furlott. Rahter did not directly answer the question, but simply stated that he “would not have kept her.”

There is no support in the record for the referee’s decision. To the contrary, the evidence clearly establishes that Furlott is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. We grant Furlott’s petition for review and set aside the order of the commission. The case is remanded with directions to enter an order allowing the benefits.

GRIMES, C. J., and OTT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

386 So. 2d 274, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furlott-v-florida-department-of-labor-employment-security-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack