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.
Lobb v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
Citations: 715 So. 2d 321; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9463; 1998 WL 412493Docket: No. 97-2739
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 24, 1998; Florida; State Appellate Court
Edward H. Lobb appeals a decision from the Unemployment Appeals Commission, which upheld a ruling that he was ineligible for unemployment compensation. Lobb, a shipboard engineer for Crowley American Transport from February 1989 to March 1997 and a member of the Seafarer’s International Union, was informed in February 1996 about a change in position requirements that mandated attendance in a three-month training course by March 1, 1997, to maintain his qualified member status (QMED I). Failure to complete the training would result in his demotion to QMED IV, with a 30% pay cut. Lobb asserts he could not attend the training due to class availability issues and an on-the-job injury that temporarily incapacitated him from June to September 1995, preventing him from accruing requisite sailing time. After resigning in March 1997 to avoid demotion, Lobb filed for unemployment compensation on April 2, 1997, claiming he was terminated due to the job requirement changes. Initially awarded unemployment compensation, this decision was later reversed by an appeals referee, who concluded Lobb voluntarily left his job without good cause after failing to meet the Union-agreed requirements. Lobb's appeal to the Commission included a proffer of "newly-discovered evidence" under Florida Administrative Code Rule 38E-3.005, which the Commission rejected due to non-compliance with evidentiary requirements and denied his request for a new hearing. The Commission affirmed the referee’s decision, stating it complied with legal standards. Lobb did not contest the Commission's affirmation based on the record nor challenge his violation of the evidentiary rule. Lobb contends on appeal that the Commission acted unfairly by enforcing a compliance rule against him, arguing that pro se litigants should receive leniency. However, the court declines to support this view, citing Lobb's failure to provide a sufficient record to demonstrate any error or inequity, or to establish a basis for relief. The court affirms the decision, noting that Lobb has not shown grounds for reversal. Additionally, Lobb claims he needed to sail 120 days a year to attend a school, but it remains unclear how his 1995 injury affected his ability to meet this requirement in 1996. The court references prior cases that have rejected similar policy arguments made by Lobb. The record does not show any details about the additional evidence Lobb intended to present to the Commission, as his referenced letter was not included in the appeal record, and no attachments were provided. Lobb has not taken action to remedy this oversight or clarify the nature of the additional evidence.