Woman Wins Unemployment Claim

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