The company’s handbook said that employees fired for “gross misconduct” would not receive pay for earned but unused vacation time. The term “gross misconduct” was not defined.

One employee was fired after he failed a mandatory drug test. He did not receive any vacation pay.

He sued, claiming a failed drug test didn’t reach the level of gross misconduct and demanded a payout for the leave he didn’t use.

The court agreed. Since the company didn’t explain what conduct it was referring to, the judge tipped the scales in the employee’s favor and said “gross misconduct” refers to actions that are “intentional, wanton, willful, deliberate, reckless or in deliberate indifference to an employer’s interest.”

And, according to the court, failing a drug test didn’t make the cut. The employee was awarded his payout.

The lesson: Be careful about using terms that are open to interpretation without clearly defining them. If the handbook had simply said, for example, that employees forfeit their paid leave if they’re fired for breaking company policy, the court battle could likely have been avoided.

Cite: Lang v. Quality Mold.

That’s what two employees claimed in one recent court case.

The employer gave all full-time employees 120 hours of sick time a year. Employees who exceeded that allotment were disciplined.

Two employees had each taken close to 120 hours of sick leave — plus, they had both taken time off for FMLA. So by the end of the year, they’d used more sick time than they were allowed and were suspended without pay.

They sued, claiming they were disciplined because they took FMLA.

The company’s response: Employees had the choice of whether they wanted to use paid sick leave while they were on FMLA. In this case, the employees chose to take the paid time.

Then, when they tried to take more sick days after that, they were punished.

Who won the case?

Answer: The company.

The employees chose to use sick leave when they took FMLA and continued to use sick time when they knew they’d run out. “In other words,” the judge said, “they want more paid sick time than other [employees] got.”

The court didn’t buy their argument and the case was thrown out.

Cite: Tucker v. County of Monmouth

Many employers choose to have leave policies that are more generous than what the FMLA requires. But as a recent case shows, that doesn’t mean those companies are immune to lawsuits.

An employee needed two months off work after complications during surgery. His boss told him he could take paid leave for whatever time he needed.

Though the employee was eligible for FMLA, neither he nor his boss ever mentioned it as a possibility. Instead, he took time off and was paid his full salary until he was able to come back to work.

The manager told him his job would be open for him when he returned.

The problem: The supervisor couldn’t live up to his promise. Once he went back to work, the employee was put in a different position and given a pay cut.

He sued under FMLA, claiming he was unfairly denied reinstatement to his former position.

The company tried to have the case thrown out, arguing the employee had no right to reinstatement because he never took FMLA leave.

But the judge didn’t buy it. As the court ruled, most likely, the only reason he didn’t take FMLA is that his manager never offered it — and he was obligated to after he learned the reason the employee needed time off.

The company may have acted generously by giving the employee seemingly indefinite paid leave, but that didn’t mean he wasn’t entitled to the FMLA’s job protection.

Generosity’s not enough

The lesson for managers: It’s easy to think employees don’t need FMLA because the company’s offering a more generous leave policy and plans to keep the employee in the same job no matter what.

But as this case shows, those plans don’t always work out. And that makes employers an easy target for lawsuits.

Managers need to notify HR whenever they think an employee qualifies for FMLA so leave can be offered — no matter what the employer’s individual leave policy.

Cite: Smith v. Primecare Medical, Inc.

Last year, San Fransisco passed an ordinance requiring all employers in the city to offer paid sick leave. No other governments have followed suit, but plenty are trying. The Connecticut Legislature recently debated a paid sick day bill, and a group in Ohio is trying to get a similar measure on the ballot in November.

On the federal level, the Healthy Families Act has been kicked around Congress for a while without being passed.

It’s rare to see an employer that doesn’t offer paid sick days. But that doesn’t mean these bills won’t cause problems if they’re passed. For example:

• PTO conflicts — Employers would no longer be able to offer leave in a singular paid time off (PTO) bank, since they’d have to track sick time separately. Or, they’d have to offer the mandated sick days on top of the existing PTO bank.
• Tracking issues — The bills each have a unique system for figuring out how much time people get (in Connecticut, it’d be one hour of leave for every 40 hours worked). Employers with different accrual methods would have to change.
• Part-timers — Some of the bills cover all employees — including temps and part-timers. Forced leave for those employees would burden a lot of small companies.

Hopefully, the problems will be corrected before the proposals are passed. We’ll keep you posted as the legislatures battle it out.

A bill proposed in the Connecticut state legislature would give qualified workers a certain amount of guaranteed paid sick days every year. And an amendment proposed would give an interesting definition of what employees can call a “sick day.”

Under the amendment, employers would not be allowed to ask for medical certification on the following days:

1. June 21
2. The first day of a hunting or fishing season, and
3. Major League Baseball’s opening day.

The amendment didn’t get very far, but why was it introduced in the first place? You can chalk it up to pure satire.

It was drafted by two lawmakers who opposed the bill. Apparently, they wanted to make a point about the burden it would place on employers and the likelihood of worker abuse.