Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Alderman v. Blen F. Gibson Auctioneering Services, Inc.
No. 94-2934 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. filed July 6, 1995); Clearinghouse Number: 50792
Description
Claimant Who Quit Her Part-Time Job After Being Laid Off from Her Full-Time Job Challenges Benefit Disqualification
Abstract
Appellant unemployment compensation claimant has appealed the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission disqualifying her from benefits. While employed full-time as an administrative assistant, appellant supplemented her income by working part-time one night a week as an office assistant for another employer. After being laid off from her full-time job, she applied for and received unemployment compensation. Subsequently, she quit her part-time job for personal reasons. Finding that she had left her part-time job without good cause attributable
to her employer, the commission disqualified her from benefits. On appeal, appellant argues that the commission committed legal error by interpreting a recent amendment to state law, which defines "work" for unemployment compensation purposes as either full-time, part-time, or temporary employment, to disqualify appellant from
benefits. She asserts that the most reasonable interpretation of this amendment is that in a disqualification issue the circumstances surrounding the termination from each of the claimant's employers, whether full-time or part-time, should be controlling. Appellant also argues that by effectively preventing persons who quit their part-time jobs for personal reasons from showing that they are otherwise entitled to a portion of their nemployment compensation benefits based on being laid off from their former, full-time employment, whereas full-time employees who never obtained part-time work are not so penalized, the commission's interpretation
establishes a classification that frustrates the legitimate state goal of encouraging work.
