Sharon Smiley worked at a Chicago
real estate company for 10 years as a receptionist and administrative assistant.
One day, after she punched out for
lunch, she continued to do work at her desk – she wanted to finish a project. Smiley’s manager told her it was time for her
to go to lunch and step away from her desk, but she declined. That manager then observed Smiley working on her
computer, answering the phone and responding to questions by people who
approached her desk, according to a filing from the appellate court of
Illinois.
The company's human resources
director then got involved and explained that non-exempt employees were
required to take a 30-minute lunch break and that this policy was in the company
handbook. The HR director further stated that not following the policy would
be a violation of Illinois' labor laws. In addition, because Smiley's desk was located directly
at the front door of the office, the HR director had "many
discussions” over Smiley eating at her desk. Smiley was subsequently fired because she
continued to work through her lunch break after being told directly not to do
so.
As employers are aware, many states have
laws that require employers to provide employees with a rest and/or meal break. In an effort to comply with the law and manage
overtime expenses, many employers monitor employees to insure that the
employees are taking the required breaks.
The law doesn’t require that an employer fire a worker who
refuses to take a break in order to finish continue work. However, it is not uncommon for employers to discipline
an employee for insubordination if the employee fails to follow a management
directive or refuses to comply with a company policy.
Another important fact is that
Illinois, like the majority of states, is an employment at-will state which
means that Smiley or any employee can be fired to no reason or any reason as
long as the reason for termination is not discriminatory/illegal.
Here’s where this case gets
interesting. Smiley did not challenge her termination. It’s the employer’s post-termination conduct
that got the employer in trouble. After being
fired, Smiley learned she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she
had been discharged for misconduct connected with her work! This was probably an overstatement.
Smiley appealed to the Illinois
Department of Employment Security's board of review three times, was denied,
then took her case to a circuit court. That court ruled Smiley, who did not
challenge the firing, was eligible for benefits.
The appellate court of Illinois
affirmed the circuit court ruling saying the "insubordination
arose from [Smiley's] efforts to perform additional work for [her employer], beyond
what was required of her." "The
insubordination occurred in a meeting with her superiors which lasted only four
minutes," the court ruling stated. The
court ruling also said there was evidence that managers had been able to work
with her in the past to perform new tasks with which she was uncomfortable.
In Illinois, an unemployed person is
qualified for unemployment unless there is misconduct, which has been defined
as “conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's
interests." In this case, the employer's position that Smiley's actions amounted to the level of misconduct that disqualify her from eligibility for unemployment benefits.
BOTTOM
LINE:
Can you fire an employee for failing to take required meal breaks?
Probably. Can you deny unemployment
benefits due to insubordination? That depends. The employer's definition might not be the same as the state's or governing agency's definition. If the employer's definition is more stringent than the state's definition, there could be problems for the employer.
If you’re facing this situation or
have any questions, contact me.
For more information, visit my website.
For more information, visit my website.