Employee Terminated for Working Through Lunch Wins U.I. Appeal
- Details
- Published on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 05:19
Sharon Smiley worked for 10 years as a receptionist and administrative assistant at a Chicago real estate company. However, she was terminated for working through her lunch, in violation of company policy. Specifically, Smiley alleged that she punched out of work for lunch but remained at her desk to finish a project assigned by a manager because she did not plan to eat that day. Another manager advised Smiley that it was time for her to take her meal break and step away from her desk, but apparently she refused. The manager observed Smiley performing her job duties including working on a spreadsheet on her computer, answering the phone and responding to questions by people who approached her desk. The company's human resources director became involved, explaining that hourly non-exempt employees were required to take a 30-minute meal break, a policy that had been in the company handbook for 10 years. Further, the HR director advised that not following the policy would be a violation of Illinois' labor laws. Smiley was terminated and subsequently Smiley filed for unemployment insurance (U.I.) benefits, which were denied due to her “misconduct.” According to the employer, Smiley had been warned several times about working during her meal period. After a two-year battle, an Illinois appeals court has found that denial of her unemployment benefits was "clearly erroneous." Similar to California, Illinois requires employers to provide employees a lunch break. But, according to one legal expert, Michael LeRoy, law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the law does not mean that an employer may fire a worker who refuses to take a break in order to finish his or her work. This puts employers in the difficult position of risking a violation of wage and hour laws by not disciplining employees for failing to take their meal periods as required by law and workplace policies versus imposing disciplinary measures for failure to follow company policy, such as termination, which could be interpreted by a court as inappropriate under the circumstances. Read More.