Novas v. FLA. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'N

• Decision Date: 09 June 1999
• Docket Number: No. 99-388.,99-388.
• Citation: 735 So.2d 563
• Parties: America M. NOVAS, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and St. Kevin School, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

735 So.2d 563

America M. NOVAS, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and St. Kevin School, Appellees.

No. 99-388.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 9, 1999.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1999.

Andrew B. Rosenblatt, Miami, for appellant.

J. Patrick Fitzgerald, P.A. and Roberto J. Diaz, Miami, for appellees.

Before GERSTEN, GODERICH, and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the denial of unemployment benefits to the appellant, America M. Novas. The commission affirmed the appeal referee's legal conclusion that Novas was disqualified from receiving such benefits pursuant to section 443.101, Florida Statutes (1997), because she had been discharged from St. Kevin Catholic School, the appellee and Novas' employer, for misconduct in connection with work. Although we conclude that the competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing fails to support this conclusion, we nevertheless affirm the denial of benefits where the evidence reflects that Novas left her employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to the school.

An employee who voluntarily leaves work without good cause attributable to the employer or who is discharged by the employer for misconduct connected with work will be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. See § 443.101, Fla. Stat.; see also Amato v. State, Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 648 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In Uniweld Prods., Inc. v. Industrial Relations Comm'n, 277 So.2d 827, 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), the court defined good cause as "one which would reasonably impel the average able-bodied worker to give up his or her employment.".

The findings of fact set forth by the referee, which we must accept since they are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, see Ryals v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 722 So.2d 845, 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Walz v. Reggie's Seafood and BBQ House, Inc., 718 So.2d 861, 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), are as follows:

The claimant was employed by the employer for approximately 18 years as a school principal. In March of 1997, the claimant tendered her written resignation to the Father, indicating that she was tired of administration and she wanted to go back to teaching. Since the Father had just started working at the school, he asked the claimant if she could stay on at least one more year.

The claimant tore up her resignation letter and agreed to stay on at least one more year.

On January 8, 1998, the Father brought the claimant into his office and told her that since she was going to be leaving at the end of the 1997-1998 school year, they needed to think of individuals who might replace her as the new principal. He indicated to the claimant that this meeting and their discussion of a new principal was to be kept confidential and not to be discussed with anyone. At no time during this meeting did the claimant indicate she wanted to rescind her resingation [sic].

On January 13, 1998, the Father reviewed a letter that the claimant had sent to the parents of the students indicating that the Father had decided to search for a new principal for the school and she would not be working there during the 1998-1999 school year.

On January 14, 1998, the Father tried to schedule a meeting with the claimant to discuss the letter

...