Velilla v. William Island

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Velilla v. William Island

705 So. 2d 1044, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1131, 1998 WL 51593

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2053

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 705 So. 2d 1044 (Velilla v. William Island) 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

Velilla v. William Island, 705 So. 2d 1044, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1131, 1998 WL 51593 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Velilla left his employment as a restaurant busser after a conversation with a labor “counselor” for his employer. Velilla testified that the counselor fired him. Another employee stated that she had been told by the counselor that Velilla quit. The counsel- or did not testify. Nonetheless, the appeals referee found that the appellant had “voluntarily quit his position” and the unemployment appeals commission affirmed the denial of benefits on that ground.

Because it is based upon pure hearsay which is directly contrary to the only direct testimony on the point, the factual conclusion that the appellant voluntarily left his employment and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits cannot stand. Spicer v. Metro. Dade County, 458 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and cases cited; Campbell v. Cent. Fla. Zoological Soc’y, 432 So.2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); City of Fort Lauderdale v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 536 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). On this record, the referee was bound to find that Velilla had been involuntarily discharged and was therefore entitled to the benefits claimed. See Gulf County Sch. Bd. v. Washington, 567 So.2d 420 (Fla.1990). Accordingly the order below is reversed with directions to grant him those benefits.

Reversed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Velilla left his employment as a restaurant busser after a conversation with a labor “counselor” for his employer. Velilla testified that the counselor fired him. Another employee stated that she had been told by the counselor that Velilla quit. The counsel- or did not testify. Nonetheless, the appeals referee found that the appellant had “voluntarily quit his position” and the unemployment appeals commission affirmed the denial of benefits on that ground.

Because it is based upon pure hearsay which is directly contrary to the only direct testimony on the point, the factual conclusion that the appellant voluntarily left his employment and was therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits cannot stand. Spicer v. Metro. Dade County, 458 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), and cases cited; Campbell v. Cent. Fla. Zoological Soc’y, 432 So.2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); City of Fort Lauderdale v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 536 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). On this record, the referee was bound to find that Velilla had been involuntarily discharged and was therefore entitled to the benefits claimed. See Gulf County Sch. Bd. v. Washington, 567 So.2d 420 (Fla.1990). Accordingly the order below is reversed with directions to grant him those benefits.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 1044, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1131, 1998 WL 51593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velilla-v-william-island-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack