Lewis v. Hot Shoppes
| Decision Date | 31 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 1715,1715 |
| Citation | 211 So.2d 20 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Shellie Mae LEWIS, Petitioner, v. HOT SHOPPES and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents. |
E. O. Denison, Fort Pierce, for petitioner.
Davis W. Duke, Jr., of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum & Ferris, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent Hot Shoppes.
Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and James R. Parks, Miami, for respondent Florida Industrial Commission.
Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to the Florida Industrial Commission to review an order denying petitioner unemployment compensation benefits under Chapter 443, F.S.1967, F.S.A.
When petitioner's employment had been terminated, she had applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The claims examiner found petitioner to be disqualified from such benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause attributable to her employer. Petitioner then followed the administrative procedure for an appeal and was given notice of a hearing before an appeals referee, the notice reciting that the issues would be (1) whether claimant has been able to work and available for work, and (2) whether claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause attributable to her employer.
At the hearing before the appeals referee the evidence on these two issues was entirely favorable to the claimant. However, the employer introduced evidence showing that petitioner had been discharged for misconduct connected with her work. The appeals referee thereafter entered his decision finding that claimant did not leave her employment of her own accord but was discharged by the employer for misconduct connected with her work, and was therefore disqualified for benefits. The Board of Review affirmed; hence the petition to this court.
The administrative hearing given petitioner in this case fails to meet the essential requirements of law inasmuch as claimant did not have notice that misconduct connected with her work would be an issue to be considered at the hearing. Due process of law requires either proper notice of the issues to be heard or a basis in the record to show an informed and intelligent waiver of the same. Neither was present in this case.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted; the order reviewed is quashed; and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Labor and Indus. Relations Com'n of Mo., Div. of Employment Sec.
...of Emp. Sec., 136 Vt. 72, 385 A.2d 1080 (1978); White v. Idaho Forest Industries, 98 Idaho 784, 572 P.2d 887 (1977); Lewis v. Hot Shoppes, 211 So.2d 20 (Fla.App.1968). The circuit court's decision is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court with directions to remand to the La......
-
Garfinkl v. Garfinkl, s. 74--1711
...in Mayflower Inv. Co. v. Brill, 1939, 137 Fla. 287, 188 So. 205; Eagle v. Carr, 1943, 153 Fla. 224, 14 So.2d 268; and Lewis v. Hot Shoppes, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 20. We regard the questions presented on this appeal to be of such importance that they should be settled by the Supreme Court ......
-
Teegarden v. Director, Ark. Employment Sec. Division
...process requires either proper notice of the issues to be heard or a basis to find an intelligent waiver. Lewis v. Hot Shoppes & Fla. Industrial Commission, 211 So.2d 20 (Fla.App.1968). The Supreme Court of Vermont dealt with this question in Kaufman v. Department of Employment Security, 13......
-
Smith v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'N, 99-559.
...claimant is deprived of a fair hearing. See Penton v. Royal Crown Bottling Co., 646 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Lewis v. Hot Shoppes, 211 So.2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Kaufman v. Department of Employment Security, 136 Vt. 72, 385 A.2d 1080 (1978). Appellant clearly lacked any notice that......