STEVEN A. SALVATORE,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT 

ASSISTANCE APPEALS 

COMMISSION and YP 

SOUTHEAST ADVERTISING,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4843

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 21, 2015.

An appeal from an order from the Reemployment Assistance Appeals 

Commission.

Frank E. Brown, Chairman.

Steven A. Salvatore, pro se, Appellant.

Cristina A. Velez, Tallahassee, for Appellee, Reemployment Assistance Appeals 

Commission.

Melanie A. Zaharias of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Orlando, for Appellee, YP 

Southeast Advertising.
2

MARSTILLER, J.

Steven A. Salvatore, who quit his sales job with YP Southeast Advertising 

(“employer”) after six weeks of training and four days in the call center, appeals a 

final order denying his claim for unemployment benefits. The final order, issued by 

the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission (“Commission”), affirmed the 

decision of the appeals referee, who determined that Mr. Salvatore quit because he 

did not believe he was up to the job, and that this was not good cause attributable to 

the employer. We affirm the Commission’s final order.

Section 443.101(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that an employee is 

disqualified from receiving reemployment assistance benefits if he or she voluntarily 

left work without good cause attributable to his or her employing unit, or was 

discharged for misconduct connected with work. The term “good cause” includes 

“only that cause attributable to the employing unit which would compel a reasonable 

employee to cease working or attributable to the individual’s illness or disability 

requiring separation from his or her work.” § 443.101(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2014). As 

contemplated by the unemployment compensation law, “good cause” describes “that 

which would drive an average, able-bodied worker to quit his or her job.” Ogle v. 

Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 87 So. 3d 1264, 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) 

(quoting Recio v. Kent Sec. Servs., Inc., 727 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)). 

Once the employer demonstrates that the employee voluntarily left employment, the 
3

employee, to qualify for unemployment benefits, must present evidence to prove that 

he or she left the employment for good cause attributable to the employer. See

Borakove v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 14 So. 3d 249, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2009).

Based on the testimony given by Mr. Salvatore and the employer’s call center 

sales operation manager, the appeals referee found:

The claimant was hired on April 14, 2014, and was 

separated on June 3, 2014. The employer, YP Southeast 

Advertising, employed the claimant as a full-time Account 

Executive. There was continuing work available to him. 

The claimant was given six weeks of training in his job. 

He was then released onto the sales floor of the employer, 

where he was [sic] performed his duties as a Directory 

Telephone Sales Representative in an outbound callcenter. He worked on the sales floor for one week. During 

this time, he decided that he was not up to the job 

requirement. He did not talk to anyone in management 

about his concerns, nor did he approach anyone in the 

Human Resources Department about his concerns. He 

resigned without notice, effective immediately. His 

resignation was accepted.

The referee concluded Mr. Salvatore voluntarily quit his job, but failed to meet his 

burden to show he left for good cause because the reason he gave (not being up to 

the job) was not attributable to the employer.

The referee’s factual findings are, with one exception, supported by 

competent, substantial evidence. See Molly Lewis Sasso, P.A. v. Reemployment 

Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 124 So. 3d 244, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“To 
4

successfully challenge an appeals referee’s findings of fact, an appellant must 

demonstrate a lack of competent, substantial record evidence supporting the 

findings.”). The one unsupported finding is that Mr. Salvatore “did not talk to 

anyone in management about his concerns.” Although the sales manager who 

testified before the referee said Mr. Salvatore never raised any issues with her, Mr. 

Salvatore testified that he told two other managers he was concerned about his 

unfamiliarity with social media, the use of which apparently was part of the job.

Nevertheless, the referee’s remaining findings support the denial of Mr. 

Salvatore’s claim for unemployment benefits. There is no real dispute that he quit 

his job voluntarily. The question is whether he left the job for reasons “which would 

compel a reasonable employee to cease working[.]” § 443.101(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. 

This is legal conclusion we consider de novo. See generally Ramirez v. 

Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 135 So. 3d 408, 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2014).

Mr. Salvatore makes several factual assertions in his initial brief that he did 

not testify to before the appeals referee. We cannot take those assertions into 

account, however; we can only consider the testimony given below. Before the 

referee, Mr. Salvatore stated that he did not have much experience using online 

services like Craigslist, Facebook and other social media, or using Internet search 

tools, prior to taking the sales job. And the employer’s sales agents use those 
5

services and tools to find sales leads. Mr. Salvatore testified he “thought the training 

was pretty good,” though it did not “delve into” the fundamentals of using online 

services and social media. He testified he made it through the six-week training 

program, but near the end of the period, still was having difficulties using the online 

tools, except Craigslist. Once on the phones, he had no problem making sales calls, 

but still was not comfortable with his online skills. He conveyed his concern to his 

immediate supervisor who was “condescending” and referred him to YouTube for 

videos that might help. Mr. Salvatore testified the supervisor “wasn’t helpful to me,” 

and he received “no support” from the call center floor manager. He did not, 

however, explain what support he felt he needed or what specific support he had 

requested.

We conclude that, even taken together, Mr. Salvatore’s reasons for quitting 

his job after four days do not constitute good cause attributable to the employer. The 

fact that he was not confident in his online skills simply is not the fault of the 

employer. Moreover, it does not appear he was hindered in garnering sales leads. 

He testified his “outbound phone calls . . . were always on top of everybody’s. I had 

no problem doing that.” Further, the manager’s condescending statements do not 

rise to the level of verbal abuse courts have found to constitute good cause to leave 

a job. Cf. Dempsey v. Old Dominion Freight Lines, 645 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 1994) (finding that employee had good cause to quit because “the average 
6

employee of reasonable sensibilities would feel degraded and humiliated at being 

the direct recipient of constant profanity at the hands of an employer”); Gollet 

Enters. East, Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 630 So. 2d 1166, 1166 

(Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (affirming Commission’s conclusion that employee had good 

cause to quit when employer directed profanity at employee and shouted and 

slammed things). The comments Mr. Salvatore testified to were neither profane nor 

insulting, and, in our view, would not impel “the average employee of reasonable 

sensibilities” to quit his job.

The record before us supports the appeals referee’s determination that Mr. 

Salvatore voluntarily quit his job without good cause attributable to his employer. 

As such, the Commission correctly affirmed the order denying his claim for 

unemployment benefits.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.