VEOLA B. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1979-09-18
No. 79-118
Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
374 So. 2d 1158 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1979) Negative Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

This is an appeal from the affirmance of an Appeals Referee’s order holding the appellant disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because of “misconduct connected with [her] work.” Section 443.06(1), Florida Statutes (1977). The record reveals that the referee denied the employee her basic right to the compulsory attendance of witnesses by declining to issue subpoenas for the persons she wished to call at the hearing. On the authority of Spiegel v. Lavis Plumbing Services, 373 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) and Drogaris v. Martine’s Inc., 118 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), we reverse the order below and remand for a new hearing before which, as in Spiegel, the appellant may “subpoena any witness [she] desires.”

Reversed and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Guerra v. State, 427 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …y be disregarded as merely harmless must be based in large measure on the nature and significance of the error and its relationship to the rights of the affected party. See Williams v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 374 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Spiegel v. Lavis Plumbing Services, 373 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (referee’s denial of claimant’s unconditional constitutional right to compulsory process requires reversal without consideration of harmlessness even absent sho…
  • Ivone S. O'Blenis v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 388 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
    …e of witnesses by denying her request to issue subpoenas for persons she wished to call at the hearing to testify in her behalf. See Spiegel v. Lavis Plumbing Services, 373 So. 2d 72 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), and Williams v. Florida Department of Commerce, 374 So. 2d 1158 (Fla.3d DCA 1979). The employee was dismissed from her job as a cafeteria attendant. The claims examiner found her eligible for unemployment compensation and concluded she had not been dismissed for misconduct connected with her work. The Appeals R…
  • Lawrence R. Engel, D.D.S. v. Hon. Linda Rigot, 434 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
    …nce of the depositions. The effect of the order is to deny Dr. Engel any ability to discover the Board’s case and is a departure from the essential requirements of law. See Williams v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 374 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Drogaris v. Martine’s, Inc., 118 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960); see also State ex rel. Munch v. Davis, 143 Fla. 236, 196 So. 491 (1940) (if the accused in an administrative hearing is not granted the right to examine evidence off…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw