Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Alliance Business Solutions, Inc. v. Florida Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission
Citations: 98 So. 3d 692; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16514; 2012 WL 4512771Docket: No. 1D11-6349
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 3, 2012; Florida; State Appellate Court
Alliance Business Solutions, Inc. appealed a final order from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission regarding former employee Clarence Thaxton's qualification for unemployment benefits. The central issue was the application of section 443.101(10)(b) of the Florida Statutes and whether Mr. Thaxton voluntarily left his job. The court concluded that Alliance was required to notify Mr. Thaxton to report for reassignment after the end of the leasing agreement with his previous employer, Process Masters, to avoid disqualifying him from benefits. The Commission reasonably determined that Alliance's failure to provide this notice made Mr. Thaxton's departure involuntary, thus entitling him to unemployment benefits. From January 2009 to March 2011, Alliance leased employees from Process Masters, including Mr. Thaxton, who worked as a mechanic. After the leasing contract ended, Mr. Thaxton continued working at Process Masters until being laid off a month later. He filed for unemployment benefits but was initially denied due to failing to contact Alliance for reassignment. An appeals referee later reversed this decision, citing that Alliance did not inform Mr. Thaxton of his obligation to report for reassignment after the contract's conclusion. The Commission upheld this reversal. The court reviewed the Commission’s order for clear errors and substantial evidence. Section 443.101(10)(b) indicates that a leased employee is deemed to have voluntarily quit if they do not contact their leasing firm for reassignment after their assignment ends, provided they were notified of this requirement at both hiring and separation. The referee found that Alliance failed to give Mr. Thaxton the necessary notice, and substantial evidence supported this finding, allowing Mr. Thaxton to remain eligible for benefits. The court affirmed the Commission’s decision. Judges Van Nortwick and Roberts concurred.