LEAH C. SCHNEIER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This appeal involves whether an employee was terminated or voluntarily resigned from her position. The Appeals Commission reversed the appeals referee's finding of discharge, concluding the employee voluntarily left after being advised of other available positions. The court reversed, holding that the referee's factual finding of discharge was supported by substantial, competent evidence and could not be re-weighed by the Commission.
The court reversed the Appeals Commission's decision, holding that the appeals referee's finding that Schneier was discharged was supported by substantial, competent evidence. The Commission lacks authority to re-weigh evidence or reverse the referee when the decision is based on substantial, competent evidence.
[1] The determination of whether an employee voluntarily resigned or was discharged is a question of fact.
[2] An appeals referee, as the trier of fact, is responsible for weighing conflicting evidence and judging witness credibility.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The question of whether a claimant left work voluntarily is a question of fact.”
Establishes that voluntary resignation versus discharge is a factual determination within the referee's domain
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeah Schneier's position was terminated by her employer. She was offered a position in Little Rock, Arkansas, which she declined because she wished to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Weighing Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
This appeal involves a question of whether an employee was terminated or whether she voluntarily resigned. The appeals referee found that she was discharged and that the only alternative position she was offered was in Little Rock, Arkansas. This conclusion was reversed by the Appeals Commission upon the basis that “although no specific offer was made by the employer, the claimant was advised that there were other positions available in South Florida” and that she therefore “voluntarily left her employment.” We reverse.
“The question of whether a claimant left work voluntarily is a question of fact.” Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 570 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The appeals referee is the trier of fact, responsible for weighing and resolving conflicting evidence and judging credibility. Ritenour at 1107. His decision must be affirmed on appeal if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Kan v. P.G. Cook Assoc., 566 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
The appeals referee in this case found that appellant did not voluntarily leave her job but instead was discharged. There were only two witnesses at the hearing, appellant and her supervisor. Appellant testified that she was forced to resign because her position was terminated. She acknowledged that she was offered a position in Little Rock, Arkansas, but turned it down because of her expressed desire to remain in South Florida. She stated that one of the national managers informed her there were no job opportunities in South Florida.
Appellant’s supervisor testified that she quit because she was completely dissatisfied with the job and wanted a career change. He admitted that her position was terminated but stated that appellant initiated her separation from the company. He further stated that there were jobs in South Florida which he believed appellant was aware of; however, he did not expressly offer them to her because of her desire to change careers.
There was substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the referee’s conclusion that appellant was discharged or forced to resign. As this court has noted, “[t]he [Unemployment Appeals Commission] cannot re-weigh the evidence or reverse the referee when her decision is based on substantial, competent evidence.” Smith v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
This pro se appellant has made a convincing argument and the decision of the Appeals Commission is reversed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dina J. Grossman v. Jewish Cmty. Ctr. OF Greater Fort Lauderdale Inc., 704 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…sible for weighing and resolving conflicting evidence and judging credibility, having witnessed the demeanor of the parties, is deemed to be in the best position to make these credibility determinations. Schneier v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 595 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The UAC may reverse the referee’s findings of fact, however, where there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the referee’s decision. § 120.57, Fla. Stat. (1995); see also Smith v. Fla. Unemployme…
-
Lucido v. State, 862 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…in the best position to make these credibility determinations. Grossman v. Jewish Cmty. Ctr. of Greater Fort Lauderdale, Inc., Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 704 So. 2d 714, 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(citing Schneier v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 595 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). As we explained in San Roman v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 711 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), once a referee makes a determination regarding a claim, the commission reviews that decision to determine: whether t…
Authorities Cited
- Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 570 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Smith v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & DGP Invs., Inc., 588 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- The Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. OF the State OF Fla. v. Ondrizek, 566 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)