Chicago Woman Fired for Doing Work at Lunch
 

:disgust

Sharon Smiley had worked for 10 years as a receptionist and administrative assistant at a Chicago real estate company until she was fired for skipping lunch one day. After a two-year battle, an appeals court in Illinois has found that denial of her unemployment benefits was "clearly erroneous."

Smiley, 48, punched out of work for lunch Jan. 28, 2010, but remained at her desk to finish a project assigned by a manager because she did not plan to eat that day, she said.

Smiley, who had passed her 10-year anniversary with the company more than a month before, said another manager told her it was time for her to go to lunch and step away from her desk, but she refused. That manager observed Smiley working on a spreadsheet 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.

Her former employer, Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc., did not return a request for comment.

The company's human resources director then became involved, explaining that hourly non-exempt employees were required to take a 30-minute lunch break, a policy that had been in the company handbook for 10 years, according to the filing. Not following the policy would be a violation of Illinois' labor laws, the HR director said.

The prominent location of Smiley's desk, "which was directly at the front door of the office, made this particularly important for her," according to the human resources director in the court filing. She and Smiley had "many discussions ... over her eating breakfast at her desk," the filing states

"I knew you couldn't eat lunch at your desk," Smiley told ABC News. "I was under the impression that because I was punched out and I could do what I want."

Smiley said her job had became so stressful that she suffered a stroke and was off work for almost three months, beginning July 13, 2009, according to the court filing.

Like several states, Illinois has a law that requires employers to provide employees a lunch break. But the law cannot be read to require an employer to fire a worker who refuses to take a break in order to finish her work, said Michael LeRoy, law professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"Nonetheless, Illinois is an employment-at-will state, which means the employer can fire someone for a good reason, no reason, or a bad reason, as long as it is not discriminatory," he said.

Companies often have policies that are designed to limit the number of hours employees can work in a given day or week, largely in order to avoid overtime pay obligations, Cheryl Anderson, law professor with Southern Illinois University School of Law, said. Such policies often require employer permission to work beyond an employee's regular scheduled hours.

After being fired, Smiley learned she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct connected with her work.

She 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.

Smiley received a check with a lump sum on Nov. 28 for several months of unemployment, a percentage of her previous salary. Then she received a check every two weeks for $528 until she obtained her latest job last month.

The appellate court of Illinois affirmed the circuit court ruling Jan. 11, saying the "insubordination arose from [Smiley's] efforts to perform additional work for [her employer], beyond what was required of her," as first reported Monday in the Chicago Tribune.

"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.

An unemployed person in Illinois 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," according to the state's legal test in a ruling from the board of review.

"Workers generally have to be guilty of gross misconduct, which includes insubordination," professor Anderson said. "The bar is set high for the employer to prove that, and in this case, the court found the employer's argument that her actions amounted to insubordination to be inadequate."

In the case that established the precedent in 1987, an ambulance driver was fired after having four minor accidents in three months backing up a vehicle. The hearing officer and state agency denied his unemployment claim, but the state supreme court said the law requires "evil design" or wanton disregard of its interests, and that test was not satisfied.

"If the ambulance driver with four accidents in three months qualified for a benefit, then by implication, Ms. Smiley did, too," professor LeRoy said.

After nine months of unemployment, Smiley obtained a similar job at another company on Dec. 13. She said her new employer has a more liberal lunch policy.

"They told me I could sit at my desk, I could be at my computer during lunch, or I could look at magazines. And in my area, they have two flat-screen TVs on the wall," she said with a chuckle.


Full Article...

You mean the article is bigger than this? I'm afraid to click. :Oh crap

Good for her!
Sounds like the former employer lost a loyal employee.

Sadly I can understand both sides of this.

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicagos-r...ois-employees/

this seems to lean towards what the employer may have been worried about. :helpme but still to fire her was over the top. :2 cents:

I was thinking the same! :1orglaugh

It was the only thing that was fun at the time ?

She was an awkward cow and this was their opportunity to get rid of her.

"Smiley said her job had became so stressful that she suffered a stroke and was off work for almost three months, beginning July 13, 2009, according to the court filing."

so she was overworking herself and causing herself to be an unreliable employee ?

Seems a pretty logical decision to fire her.

I thought she was fired for having an unprofessional looking desk covered in food. A desk that was immediately in view of potential customers walking in the door.

.

looks like her breath stank

It looks like they were looking for an excuse and they picked a poor one.

she should have just taken the damn lunch break

That will teach them boot licks

well shes going to get the money :winkwink: you mean they should have let her just complete her task. :2 cents: now their open to more money loss in a civil suit. the stress of not having her benefits :Oh crap :helpme

That's teach her ass to not do extra work when she's told.

:1orglaugh

They could have opened themselves up to liability by having her there working off the clock.

im sure this was a excuse to get rid of her for some other reason..............

Union states make no fucking sense, its all about Right to work...

:1orglaugh indeed!

Impressive

Flsa
 

I hate to side with employers on a FLSA action as 99% of the time they are in the wrong.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is the law for the 40 hour work week and overtime will be paid for any work over 40 hours. It also states employees will not work off the clock for employers. Usually it's the employer who demands employes clock out and keep working. Walmart is a huge violator of this. They've just paid off the right people.

Good intentions aside, when clocked out she should have gone to the lunchroom. By her working at her desk and eating off the clock, she could have sued her employer for making her work off the clock. Granted there might be no computer in the lunchroom, so she could update her Facebook at lunch, but sorry. The employer is also at fault for not having someone to replace her during lunch.

From the read, it sounds like a large, professional law firm. they should of had a lunch replacement. They should of had a place she could eat & possibly surf the web. it's what I would expect from a large firm. From a 1 or 2 man law firm, I'm used to the secretary/receptionist eating at her desk in plain view.

Many of the junior lawyers eat at their desks, but under FSLA, they are exempt. probably a small staff like her who have to clock in/out. Senior partners have no clue of these people.

Would you go to a multi-million dollar law firm like on The Good Wife and seeing a receptionist looking like some small town lawyer?

Hell, here in Kansas City, a lot of major corporations hire receptionists from foreign countries just for their accents so they sound more "International."