This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Gilbert v. Dep't. of Corrections, 696 So.2d
416 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). If an employer claims misconduct as the basis for terminating
an employee, the employee will still be eligible for unemployment compensation if the
employee separated from his or her employer with good cause. See § 443.101(1)(a) 1,
Fla. Stat. (1999); Livingston v. Tucker Construction & Engineering, Inc., 656 So.2d 499
(Fla. 2nd DCA 1995). In addition, Section 443.101(1)(a) 1 states: " 'good cause' ...
includes only such cause as is attributable to the employing unit or which consists of
illness or disability of the individual requiring separation from his or her work."
 Rivero asserts that the evidence supports a finding of good cause because Rivero's
hours were significantly reduced. A substantial reduction in hours constitutes good cause
for an employee to terminate his position and seek unemployment compensation benefits.
See Wilson v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 604 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA
1992); Knapp v. Nat'l Convenience Store, 404 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). 251  Here, the County stipulated that Rivero never requested benefits under the Family and
Medical Leave Act. In fact, Rivero stated on his benefits application that the reason he
separated from his employer was because his hours were reduced. However, the referee
never addressed this issue and focused the hearing on whether Rivero properly filed the
appropriate papers to be granted leave. Rivero never alleged that he separated from the
County due to his medical condition. The County did not dispute that Rivero's hours were
reduced or that the last day he worked was at the end of May. Since the County stipulated
that Rivero never sought medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the
County failed to rebut Rivero's claim that he resigned due to reduced hours, we find there
was not competent, substantial evidence to support the referee's decision.
Accordingly, the decision of the Division is reversed with instructions to reinstate
Rivero's unemployment compensation benefits.
Reversed with Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2000.
Rivero v. Miami-Dade County
764 So.2d 850, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D1856
END OF DOCUMENT instructions. 252 253 254 Case # 26 NATSON vs. ECKERD CORPORATION
District Court of Ap...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.
- Spring '08