Employee Fired for Refusing to Take a Meal Break Is Entitled to Unemployment Benefits! Of Course She Is.

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.