GUILLERMINA APOLINAR, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE MANAGEMENT, 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.
Apolinar appeals the Unemployment Appeals Commission's dismissal of her appeal from a referee's decision for failure to prosecute. The UAC dismissed her appeal as untimely filed, but the court reverses because the UAC failed to provide Apolinar, who has limited English proficiency, a meaningful hearing on her jurisdictional defect claim.
The UAC erred in dismissing the appeal without a hearing. Although an order to show cause with written response generally satisfies due process for untimely appeal allegations, procedural due process required further inquiry here because Apolinar's ambiguous response—given her limited English proficiency—could reasonably be interpreted as indicating she did not receive timely notice of the referee's decision.
[1] An unemployment appeals commission must provide a hearing when a claimant's response to an order to show cause regarding an untimely appeal is ambiguous and could indicat…
[2] A written response to an order to show cause is generally sufficient to satisfy procedural due process when an appeal is alleged to be untimely.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 procedure utilized by the UAC, an order to show cause requiring a written response from the claimant, generally would be adequate to provide procedural due process where there is an allegation of an untimely appeal”
Establishes the general adequacy of the UAC's procedural method but opens the door to exceptions based on particular circumstances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceApolinar received unemployment compensation totaling $851 but was denied benefits when the appeals referee dismissed her initial appeal for failure 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 Appeal Of Administrative Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Chief Judge.
Guillermina Apolinar appeals the final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) which dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, her appeal from the decision of the appeals referee, which had dismissed Apoli-nar’s initial appeal for failure to prosecute. The effect of this order was to find that Apolinar was not entitled to unemployment compensation and that she had to repay $851 that she had already received. We reverse.
The issue in this ease is whether the UAC erred in failing to provide Apolinar a hearing on her appeal from the referee’s dismissal of her case for failure to prosecute. The UAC dismissed Apolinar’s appeal because she filed it more than twenty days after the referee entered the decision. See § 443.151(4)(b)3., Fla. Stat. (1995).
Prior to summarily dismissing Apolinar’s appeal, the UAC issued an order to show cause to Apolinar to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. We conclude that the procedure utilized by the UAC, an order to show cause requiring a written response from the claimant, generally would be adequate to provide procedural due process where there is an allegation of an untimely appeal. However, the facts of this ease warrant a different conclusion.
Apolinar’s response to the order to show cause was written by a clerk with the Wau-chula Jobs and Benefits Office, where Apoli-nar had gone to seek help. Apolinar does not speak or write English. The response reads in full:
I came in constantly and was told by office personnel and was told I had to wait for a decision. I called Winter Haven and Tallahassee [and] was told to just pay the money I owed. I also wrote a letter [and] did not get a response.
Note: Claimant speaks limited English.
The UAC argues that Apolinar never alleged that she did not receive timely notice of the referee’s decision. The UAC argues that even when Apolinar was ordered to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed as untimely, her response failed to articulate the reason she now argues on appeal.
While this court does not grant exceptions to individuals merely because they do not speak English, in this case, procedural due process requires that we err on the side of caution. Apolinar’s response that “I ... was told I had to wait for a decision” was ambiguous and could be interpreted to mean that she did not receive the referee’s decision. It was sufficient to warrant further inquiry.
Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal and remand for a hearing in which Apolinar can articulate her reason for not complying with the twenty-day requirement. Further, it would be advisable for the UAC to provide Apolinar with a Spanish interpreter for the remand hearing. See § 90.606, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, J., and LENDERMAN, JOHN C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pagliaro v. Penske Auto Ctrs., Inc., 773 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…he record supports such allegations, district courts, in order to ensure due process, have reversed for an evidentiary hearing to consider the circumstances surrounding the untimely filing. See, e.g., Apolinar v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 710 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (remanding for evidentiary hearing where record indicated that claimant may not have received referee’s determination). In the present case, the referee’s decision was mailed on January 21, 2000. Mr. Pagliaro filed his notice of…
-
Genel Altimeaux v. Ocean Constr., Inc., 752 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…cedure, i.e., “an order to show cause requiring a written response from the claimant, generally would be adequate to provide procedural due process where there is an allegation of an untimely appeal.” Apolinar v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 710 So. 2d 199, 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (emphasis supplied). But in Apolinar, we found that the facts warranted a different result. Apolinar, who spoke limited English, filed an ambiguous response to the order to show cause that could have been interpreted to mean…
-
Price v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Olive Glen Condo., 889 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…due process requires that the Commission, and the courts, “err on the side of caution” and afford a liberal opportunity for a pro se employee to demonstrate that his administrative appeal is timely. See Apolinar v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 710 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). For those reasons, we vacate the order of dismissal and direct the Commission to allow Price to submit a supplemental sworn response to the order to show cause, explaining the circumstances surrounding the late appeal from the en…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence