BARBARA CALLE, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., 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.
Barbara Calle challenged an unemployment appeals decision denying benefits after she accepted an early retirement package from United Parcel Service. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Calle's acceptance of early retirement was a voluntary abandonment of employment, not a constructive discharge.
Calle's acceptance of early retirement was a voluntary abandonment of employment, not a constructive discharge. The employer's conduct did not wrongfully cause Calle to retire; rather, the employer simply imparted information and left the decision to Calle regarding whether to retire or continue working.
[1] Acceptance of an early retirement opportunity offered by an employer, even when encouraged due to anticipated future department closure, does not constitute a constructiv…
[2] An employer's communication of information and concerns to an employee regarding retirement options, without forcing a decision, does not amount to a constructive dischar…
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“We reject the contention that the employer's doing so constitutes a constructive discharge.”
Establishes that merely offering early retirement and encouraging its acceptance does not constitute constructive discharge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUPS offered an early retirement package to employees over fifty years of age a few months before Calle left employment. Calle's department was schedul…
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 Unemployment Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We find no error in the commission’s upholding the referee’s conclusion that Appellant’s acceptance of an early retirement opportunity was a voluntary abandonment of her employment and not a discharge attributable to the employer. The employer, a few months prior to Appellant’s leaving, offered an early retirement package to employees over fifty years of age. As Appellant’s department was scheduled to close down at an undetermined future date, the employer encouraged her to take advantage of early retirement. We reject the contention that the employer’s doing so constitutes a constructive discharge.
The record reflects no employer conduct that can be deemed to have wrongfully caused Appellant to retire. See Home Fuel Oil Co. v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 494 So. 2d 268, 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). This is not a circumstance, as in Platt v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 618 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), where working conditions forced the employee’s retirement; or, as in LeDew v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 456 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), where the claimant was essentially fired. Here, the employer simply imparted information and its concern to the employee, leaving it to her to decide what course of conduct was in her best interests, i.e., whether to retire or wait to see what would happen, including whether there would be employment opportunity in the future.
Appellant was not faced with imminent termination or even a certainty that she would be discharged. See Johnston v. Florida Dep’t of Commerce, 340 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Rather, Appellant simply had a good reason to voluntarily accept an early retirement opportunity. See In re Astrom 362 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
In Astrom, airline employees were afforded an option of taking early retirement in the face of an anticipated future transfer of a Pan Am maintenance base from Miami to New York. There, as to multiple employees, those orders granting unemployment benefits to some were quashed, and those orders denying benefits were affirmed, because the employees who had accepted early retirement had the option of continuing to work, notwithstanding the known uncertainties of remaining on the job. Here, as in Astrom, we cannot say that Appellant was wrongfully impelled to quit or that her decision was involuntary.
AFFIRMED.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 851 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…rongful actions or persuasion by Telemundo and thereby did not show that she voluntarily left for “good cause attributable to the employer” pursuant to section 443.101, Florida Statutes (2002). The UAC relied on Calle v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 692 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), wherein the court held there was a lack of “good cause attributable to the employer” where the claimant did not show evidence to support any employer wrongdoing. The UAC contends that only instances of wrongdoing or bad faith…
-
Tulchin v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & John D. MacArthur & Catherine T. MacArthur Found., 748 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Calle v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 692 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); In re Astrom, 362 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). STONE, GROSS, JJ., and JULIAN, JOYCE, Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Sullivan v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & SMG Food & Bev., LLC, 93 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…on in the case before it as “one of anticipatory discharge,” id., and accordingly concluded the claimants had voluntarily left their employment without good cause attributable to the employer. Similarly, in Calle v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 692 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), also cited by the Commission, the employer offered an early retirement package to employees over fifty years of age. Because the claimant’s department was scheduled to close down at an undetermined future date, the employer enco…
Authorities Cited
- Home Fuel OIL Co. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Irene F. Castle, 494 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Platt v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Club at Pelican Bay, Inc., 618 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- LeDEW v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 456 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- In re Stig O. L. Astrom, 362 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Johnston v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 340 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)