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

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, not much.

The EEOC recently sued retail chain Dillard’s over the company’s sick leave policy.

Under the policy, employees had to hand in a doctor’s note stating the specific nature of an illness in order to take authorized sick leave.

An employee complained that the policy invaded her privacy and was fired after she took sick days without turning in the note. She filed a claim with the EEOC, which is now suing the company.

The agency claims that asking for specific medical information before approving absences violates employees’ rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The case is still pending. We’ll keep you posted on how it turns out.

Cite: EEOC v. Dillard’s

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.