Case Name: Robert G. BOMAR, Appellant, v. ROLLING IN DOUGH COOKIE COMPANY, INC., and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-07-31
Citations: 715 So. 2d 333
Docket Number: No. 97-02078
Parties: Robert G. BOMAR, Appellant, v. ROLLING IN DOUGH COOKIE COMPANY, INC., and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
Judges: CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and GREEN, JJ.,-concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 715
Pages: 333–334

Head Matter:
Robert G. BOMAR, Appellant, v. ROLLING IN DOUGH COOKIE COMPANY, INC., and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
No. 97-02078.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 31, 1998.
Robert G. Bomar, pro se.
William T. Moore, Tallahassee, for Appel-lee, Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Robert G. Bomar, challenges the order denying his claim for unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse the denial of his-claim for benefits.
Mr. Bomar held full-time employment with GTE Data Services thirty-one years and nine months. He was terminated under nondis-qualifying conditions. Bomar filed a claim for and was granted unemployment compensation benefits. Subsequent to this Mr. Bo-mar took a part-time job with Rolling In Dough Cookie Company, Inc. For reasons not attributable to Rolling In Dough, Mr. Bomar quit his part-time job. The appeals referee, based upon Mr. Bomar's leaving his part-time job, concluded that Bomar was ineligible for benefits. The UAC affirmed the referee and Mr. Bomar filed a timely appeal.
Mr. Bomar conténds that he should not have been disqualified from receiving benefits for leaving part-time employment. We agree with Mr. Bomar and reverse the denial of his claim for benefits. See Berger v. Asolo Ctr. for Performing Arts, Inc., 686 So.2d 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The UAC contends that the legislature's 1994 amendment of section 443.101(l)(a) which defines "work" to mean any work, whether full-time, part-time or temporary, supports the decision to disqualify Mr. Bomar from receiving benefits. The UAC s contention is refuted by this court s decision in Berger.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and GREEN, JJ.,-concur.