NANCY C. ROLLINS, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, AND HOWARD J. JONES AND JONES AND JONES COURT REPORTERS, 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.
Petitioner Rollins sought unemployment compensation after discharge, which an Appeals Referee granted, finding no misconduct. The Industrial Relations Commission vacated and remanded based on alleged due process violations and conflict of interest concerns, but the court found no record support for these conclusions and reinstated the original decision.
The court held that the record does not support the Industrial Relations Commission's conclusions regarding due process violations or conflict of interest, and that the Employer failed to make the required showing for recusal under the relevant regulation.
[1] A hearing conducted in a manner that prevents the employer from making a statement or being questioned may violate due process requirements.
[2] A party alleging a conflict of interest requiring recusal of an administrative hearing officer must present more than the mere fact that the hearing officer is employed b…
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 Referee in the hearing below acted in a manner which was in derogation of due process requirements of the law. The Referee by his manner brought the hearing to an abrupt and arbitrary conclusion.”
The Industrial Relations Commission's stated basis for vacating the Appeals Referee's decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRollins was discharged from employment and applied for unemployment compensation. An Appeals Referee held a hearing and determined she was discharged …
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 De Novo Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
After being discharged from her employment Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation which was denied. In due course a hearing was held before an Appeals Referee who found that Petitioner was discharged by her Employer but not for misconduct connected with her work, thus she was entitled to benefits.
The Industrial Relations Commission vacated the decision of the Appeals Referee and remanded the cause to another Appeals Referee for a de novo hearing. The order of the Commission stated:
“The Referee in the hearing below acted in a manner which was in derogation of due process requirements of the law. The Referee by his manner brought the hearing to an abrupt and arbitrary conclusion. The Referee started closing the hearing before he had questioned the employer or the employer had had an opportunity to make a statement. Although the Referee continually insisted he did not want to limit anyone, his actions and attitudes had a chilling effect on the hearing. The hearing did not fulfill the requirements for the fair and impartial hearing due both parties.”
The decision of the Industrial Relations Commission is the subject of this Petition for Certiorari.
We have combed the transcript of testimony of the hearing before the Appeals Referee and fail to find any support whatsoever for the conclusions reached by the Industrial Relations Commission. The only possible basis for those conclusions would seem to be the Employer’s suggestion at the hearing before the Appeals Referee that the Referee had a conflict of interest, the conflict being that after the Employer discharged the claimant she obtained employment with the State of Florida, Unemployment Compensation office in West Palm Beach. At the time of the hearing she had worked there approximately three weeks. No showing of any sort was made to the Referee to indicate any prejudice to the Employer other than the bare fact that the claimant had been employed by the Department of Commerce for three weeks, and the Referee is also employed by the Department of Commerce. It is not even shown that the claimant and Referee work out of the same office or bureau. We think something more was required of the Employer to support a recusal of the Referee under Rule 8B-5.10(1) of the Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security.
In view of our finding that the record does not support the conclusions contained in the order being reviewed, we grant the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and quash the Order of the Industrial Relations Commission filed February 16, 1977 and direct the reinstatement of the Order of the Appeals Referee.
CROSS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.