Comments on: Do I have to pay an employee who works through lunch?

By: Maria Rose

Maria Rose — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 18:49:57 +0000

I read this article after reading the one posted about taking a lunch break and I believe I can sympathize with whomever wrote that letter to you about how to deal with this situation.
Despite laws that protect workers and their rights, there needs to be line drawn for those whom I call the abusers. They know exactly how to get certain “privileges” by citing the correct wording of reasons they can’t work within a required schedule for specific job.I worked with such an individual for many years and they found many excuses to not work weekends, holidays, or busy critical periods. Even came in late for an entire month using PLA excuse. If what he said was true, you would be sorry for the person but several times, phone calls would come in by the significant other looking for him. At least 3-4 times a year, he would have a doctor’s note, excusing him from work for exactly 30 days and suddenly he would be well again. So between his vacation time, personal time and leaves of absence, he got about 4 months off every year. I finally figured out he was taking off to work a side job and also avoiding problems at home. This is the type of person, that the writer was referring to when questioning HR. Nobody prior to me, noticed this tendency or didn’t care enough to create a written documentation.
If my company didn’t go into bankruptcy and close, I would have presented enough evidence to HR by following the history to achieve termination for this person who abused the work system to their benefit.

By: Evil HR Lady

Evil HR Lady — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 20:59:57 +0000

In reply to MS. No. I said, that if the person qualified for FMLA or ADA this was the wrong answer, but I was assuming the person did not. If I went through every possibility, the article would be way too long. :)

By: MS

MS — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 17:43:50 +0000

In reply to Evil HR Lady. exactly- you don't know yet. But you advised the writer that they could determine that it was not a disability based on just hearing that it was PT, counselling, etc. This is incorrect. Also- asking for an early departure for medical appointments does count as asking for a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Employees do not need to be more specific than that to put the employer on notice that they have to engage in the interactive process to determine whether there is a disability and whether it could be reasonably accommodated. Courts are very clear on this point.

By: Evil HR Lady

Evil HR Lady — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:53:08 +0000

In reply to MS. They could qualify under ADA, but they don't necessarily. As you know, it depends on if it affects a major life activity. Additionally, the employee needs to ask for ADA accommodations, which this person is not.

By: MS

MS — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:08:18 +0000

Employment lawyer here. This post is a legally inaccurate assessment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and how it applied to employers, and an employer who follows this advice will likely open themselves up to serious liability.
In particular, EHRL thinks “For instance, she may be in physical therapy. She may be in cognitive therapy. She may have a regular chiropractor appointment. She might need allergy shots. She might be trying to get pregnant using IVF.”
All of these could or do qualify as disabilities under the ADA! Furthermore, HR is in the best position to get confidential and sensitive medical information from employees, so they might know things you do not know re whether these qualify as disabilities.
– PT is often for a disability, same re any kind of cognitive therapy (even if its for marital trouble- the diagnosis is probably depression, anxiety, etc), and reasons to see a chiropractor (you dont know at this point, but it likely is).
– Infertility is absolutely a disability under the ADA, and an employer would have to provide a reasonable accommodation for IVF (no, it doesnt matter that the employee is choosing to try and have kids, employers dont get to not accommodate disabilities just because the employee can go on with life w/o treatment).

If this employee is a qualified individual with a disability, the burden is then on the employer to show that such an accommodation would be an undue hardship (not just inconvenient). This will depend on the essential functions of the employee’s position.

If this is solely to take her kids to medical appointments, the law is slightly less favorable for employees (since the law only requires accommodations for employees, not employees’ dependents) and the analysis is different.

By: The She Suite Blog

The She Suite Blog — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:13:09 +0000

This is an interesting inquiry. Thanks for advising!

By: Evil HR Lady

Evil HR Lady — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:33:41 +0000

In reply to HR Manager. I actually don't know which one you're talking about. I suppose I should look at my blogroll from time to time! Most of those have been on there since I started this blog about a zillion years ago.

By: HR Manager

HR Manager — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:31:36 +0000

In reply to Evil HR Lady.

I like the sense of humor you used in this post. It takes some intelligence to “get” sarcasm, too bad the above commenter failed to read further and get your point.

I visit another blog where you and your site are occasionally trashed as being too conservative by the mostly young, very left-wing commenters. I’m glad you don’t have to stoop to their level and trash them (you probably know which site it is; it is in your blogroll). Keep on doing what you’re doing!

By: Evil HR Lady

Evil HR Lady — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:57:25 +0000

In reply to Ralph Wiggum. I write for ADP. I'm pretty sure that will make you cry in your Cheerios.

By: Evil HR Lady

Evil HR Lady — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:56:45 +0000

In reply to Judy. Then they wouldn't be paid for the hour they left early. They'd work more for less money.