Pedraza v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 711
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Diana R. Pedraza worked seven years at Boston Scientific; employment ended Sept. 2011 due to foreign trade competition. Her hourly rate there was $11.74.
- Pedraza began reemployment in Dec. 2012 at Aveva earning $9.50 per hour and claimed TRA benefits under the Trade Act of 1974 based on reduced annual wages.
- Federal TEGL No. 22-08 directs annualized wages to be calculated by multiplying the hourly rate and hours from the last full week of separation (or first full week of reemployment) by 52.
- The Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission computed Pedraza’s Boston Scientific annual wages using a pay week that included Labor Day (32 hours) and Aveva using a 40-hour first week, producing a higher annual wage at reemployment; it denied TRA benefits.
- The appellate court found the Commission erred in selecting a holiday-shortened week as Pedraza’s “last full week of employment” instead of her normal 40-hour workweek and reversed, awarding TRA benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper interpretation of “last full week of employment” under TEGL for annualization | "Last full week" means the employee’s last week reflecting their normal schedule (40 hours for Pedraza); use that week for annualization | Commission applied Florida’s definition of full-time (32+ hours) and thus used the last calendar week meeting that threshold, which was holiday-shortened | Court held “last full week” means the last week reflecting the employee’s normal work schedule; Commission’s use of holiday-shortened week was clearly erroneous and reversed |
| Eligibility for TRA based on annualized wages comparison | Pedraza: her annualized prior wages (based on 40-hour normal week) exceed her reemployment wages, so she qualifies for TRA | Commission: using the holiday week, prior annualized wages were lower than reemployment wages, so she does not qualify | Court held Pedraza’s properly annualized prior wages exceed her reemployment wages; she is eligible for TRA |
| Deference to agency interpretation of statutes | Pedraza implicitly: agency interpretation must still follow the federal guideline’s plain meaning applied case-by-case | Commission: agency interpretations receive great weight and should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous | Court acknowledged deference doctrine but found the Commission’s interpretation clearly erroneous and reversed |
| Standard of review for Commission’s legal interpretation | N/A (issue inherent) | N/A | Court applied the “clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or unreasonable” standard and concluded error warranted reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Guido v. Vincam Human Resources, Inc., 729 So.2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (agency statutory interpretations accorded great weight but may be overturned if clearly erroneous)
- Weiser v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 406 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (Commission’s construction flawed; claimant entitled to TRA benefits)
- Bush v. Schiavo, 885 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2004) (discussing separation of powers and judicial authority)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (U.S. 1803) (judicial duty to say what the law is)