Wisely v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wisely v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission

78 So. 3d 118, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1122, 2012 WL 254967

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 2012

Docket1D11-1547

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 So. 3d 118 (Wisely v. Florida Unemployment Appeals 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

Wisely v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 78 So. 3d 118, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1122, 2012 WL 254967 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Claimant, Rachel Wisely, appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC), reversing the determination of the appeals referee that she was entitled to unemployment benefits. We reverse.

The appeals referee found that Claimant submitted a leave of absence to her employer to deliver her baby. The referee found that, after giving birth, Claimant called her supervisor on two occasions seeking work, but he told her that there were no hours available. The referee concluded that Claimant was discharged due to the lack of available work and that she should receive unemployment compensation benefits. On appeal, the UAC reversed the referee’s determination by finding that Claimant did not go on a bona fide leave of absence because she never advised her supervisor of a specific return date. The UAC concluded that Claimant failed to make' a reasonable effort to preserve her employment and determined that Claimant was not entitled to benefits.

We disagree with the UAC’s conclusion that a leave of absence requires the employer and the employee to agree upon a specific term for the leave.

When an employer fails to notify its employee that a leave of absence from employment is not acceptable and such failure leads the employee to believe the leave is excused, the employee’s absence cannot support a finding that the employee voluntarily left employment for purpose of unemployment compensation benefits. See Meyers v. Quality Extruded Prods., Inc., 611 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The employer has a duty to inform the employee of acceptable terms of leave; when the employer fails to inform the employee of the expected date of return, absence does not support a finding that the employee vol *120 untarily left employment. See Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Rodriguez v. Arby’s, Inc., 709 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Thus, it was not incumbent on Claimant to set a specific return date. Because her supervisor failed to inform Claimant of the terms of the approved leave before terminating her, the UAC erred in concluding that Claimant voluntarily left her employment.

The order of the UAC is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to award Claimant unemployment compensation benefits.

DAVIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Claimant, Rachel Wisely, appeals an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC), reversing the determination of the appeals referee that she was entitled to unemployment benefits. We reverse.

The appeals referee found that Claimant submitted a leave of absence to her employer to deliver her baby. The referee found that, after giving birth, Claimant called her supervisor on two occasions seeking work, but he told her that there were no hours available. The referee concluded that Claimant was discharged due to the lack of available work and that she should receive unemployment compensation benefits. On appeal, the UAC reversed the referee’s determination by finding that Claimant did not go on a bona fide leave of absence because she never advised her supervisor of a specific return date. The UAC concluded that Claimant failed to make' a reasonable effort to preserve her employment and determined that Claimant was not entitled to benefits.

We disagree with the UAC’s conclusion that a leave of absence requires the employer and the employee to agree upon a specific term for the leave.

When an employer fails to notify its employee that a leave of absence from employment is not acceptable and such failure leads the employee to believe the leave is excused, the employee’s absence cannot support a finding that the employee voluntarily left employment for purpose of unemployment compensation benefits. See Meyers v. Quality Extruded Prods., Inc., 611 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The employer has a duty to inform the employee of acceptable terms of leave; when the employer fails to inform the employee of the expected date of return, absence does not support a finding that the employee vol *120 untarily left employment. See Goodman v. Engle Homes, Inc., 621 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Rodriguez v. Arby’s, Inc., 709 So.2d 632, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Thus, it was not incumbent on Claimant to set a specific return date. Because her supervisor failed to inform Claimant of the terms of the approved leave before terminating her, the UAC erred in concluding that Claimant voluntarily left her employment.

The order of the UAC is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to award Claimant unemployment compensation benefits.

DAVIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 3d 118, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1122, 2012 WL 254967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wisely-v-florida-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack