Mueller v. Harry Lee Motors

334 So. 2d 67
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 2, 1976
Docket76-17
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 334 So. 2d 67 (Mueller v. Harry Lee Motors) 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
Mueller v. Harry Lee Motors, 334 So. 2d 67 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

334 So.2d 67 (1976)

Barry W. MUELLER, Petitioner,
v.
HARRY LEE MOTORS, Employer, and Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Dept. of Commerce, Respondents.

No. 76-17.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 2, 1976.

John Lazarus and Gail Taft, legal intern, Legal Services of Greater Miami, Miami, for petitioner.

James R. Parks, Miami, for respondents.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Barry W. Mueller, by certiorari seeks review of the denial of his claim for unemployment benefits.

On September 15, 1973 petitioner was hired by Harry Lee Motors to work a 44-hour week with overtime to be paid in excess of 44 hours. Upon telephoning the Bureau of Wages, he was informed that an employee is entitled to be paid overtime for the additional hours he works in excess of 40 hours per week. Petitioner attempted to discuss this issue with his boss, who refused and told petitioner if he was dissatisfied he could quit. Petitioner walked off the job and when he returned the next day, was informed that he had been replaced. After a hearing, petitioner's claim for unemployment compensation was denied by the claims examiner. The denial was affirmed by the appeals referee and the Industrial Relations Commission.

The law is established that an employee who voluntarily leaves his employment for good cause is still entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. Williams *68 v. Florida Industrial Commission, Fla. App. 1961, 135 So.2d 435. Good cause must be one which would reasonably impel the average able-bodied qualified worker to give up his or her employment. Uniweld Products, Inc. v. Industrial Relations Commission, Fla.App. 1973, 277 So.2d 827.

We conclude petitioner had the requisite good cause to terminate his employment in that he was not receiving overtime compensation for the additional four hours worked.

Certiorari is granted, order of denial is quashed and the cause is remanded for the entry of an order allowing petitioner benefits.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

Martinez v. FORD MIDWAY MALL, INC.
59 So. 3d 168 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Evans v. Calder Race Course, Inc.
736 So. 2d 160 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Mitchell v. Crookston Welding MacHine Co.
492 N.W.2d 256 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1992)
Madison v. Williams Island Country Club
606 So. 2d 687 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Thomas v. REVIEW BD., DEPT. OF EMP. & TRAINING SERV.
543 N.E.2d 397 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1989)
Martinez v. Pan American Hospital
409 So. 2d 1173 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Perez v. STATE, DEPT. OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT
377 So. 2d 806 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
334 So. 2d 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mueller-v-harry-lee-motors-fladistctapp-1976.