FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEE
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.
The Florida Department of Revenue appeals the Unemployment Appeals Commission's grant of unemployment benefits to William Condon, who resigned his employment pursuant to a settlement agreement resolving a PERC (Public Employees Relations Commission) dispute. The court reverses, holding that Condon's voluntary resignation without good cause attributable to the employer disqualifies him from unemployment benefits, regardless of the settlement agreement's purpose.
Employees who voluntarily resign from employment without good cause attributable to the employer are not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. Condon's disqualification is a collateral consequence of the negotiated agreement, not its primary purpose, and the settlement agreement does not operate to waive the statutory disqualification for voluntary resignation.
[1] An agreement by an individual to waive, release, or commute rights to unemployment benefits is void.
[2] A negotiated settlement agreement that allows an employee to resign instead of being terminated does not waive the employee's rights to unemployment benefits if the prima…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Employees who voluntarily resign from employment without good cause attributable to the employer are not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.”
Establishes the core statutory rule disqualifying Condon from benefits based on voluntary resignation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department of Revenue terminated Condon for a second occurrence of disruptive conduct by final action letter dated August 1, 2001. Condon filed fo…
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 Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
HAWKES, J.
The Department of Revenue appeals a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) granting unemployment benefits to William Condon. The Department argues Condon is not qualified to receive unemployment benefits, because he resigned his employment after entering a negotiated agreement in settlement of his collateral PERC action. We agree and reverse.
By final action letter dated August 1, 2001, the Department discharged Condon for a second occurrence of disruptive conduct. Following his termination, Condon filed for unemployment benefits and, shortly thereafter, challenged his termination with PERC. In order to resolve the PERC claim, Condon and the Department entered into a stipulated settlement agreement. The agreement provided, in part, that Condon would be allowed to resign from his employment with the Department instead of being terminated.
The UAC concluded the agreement had no impact on Condon’s rights to collect unemployment benefits based on section 443.041(1), Florida Statutes (2000), which, in pertinent part, provides:
(1) WAIVER OF RIGHTS VOID — Any agreement by an individual to waive, release, or commute her or his rights to benefits or any other rights under this chapter shall be void.
Clearly, if Condon and the Department had entered into an agreement, the purpose of which was for Condon to waive his rights under chapter 443, Florida Statutes, the UAC would be correct. The agreement would be void and have no impact on Condon’s rights to collect unemployment benefits. However, the parties’ purpose in entering into this agreement was to avoid any potential adverse results from the pending PERC claim. Each party derived a benefit they concluded was valuable by entering the agreement. As consequence of the negotiated agreement the Department would be prevented from stating it terminated Condon, and Condon would be permitted to voluntarily resign his employment.
The rule is clear. Employees who voluntarily resign from employment without good cause attributable to the employer are not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. See, e.g., § 443.101(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2002); Yarabothu v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 721 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Quick v. N. Cent Fla. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 316 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Because Condon voluntary resigned his employment, he is not entitled to unemployment compensation. Condon’s disqualification is a collateral consequence, not the primary purpose, of the negotiated agreement. The UAC’s conclusion to the contrary is clearly erroneous. The award of unemployment benefits is REVERSED.
DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bell v. State, 316 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Quick v. N. Cent. Fla. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 316 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Ravisankar Yarabothu v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 721 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)