Chicago woman fired for working during lunch! Now, that is mind-boggling. Sharon Smiley, a 48 year old Receptionist and Administrative assistant, punched out of work for lunch on January 28, 2010, but remained at her desk to finish a project assigned by a manger because she did not plan to eat that day, she said.
Smiley told ABC News that another manager told her it was time for her to go to lunch and instructed her to step away from her desk which she refused. A filing from the Illinois appellate court revealed that, that manager observed Smiley working on a spreadsheet on her computer, answering the phone and responding to questions by customers who approached her desk. In addition to being summarily dismissed, Smiley was also denied unemployment benefits which she eventually received January 17, 2012, after two years of litigation.
Closer home, something like this would never have happened or rather it would have occurred in the extreme reverse – ‘woman fired for abusing lunch time’. Indeed the Region produces some of the most qualified and productive employees anywhere, but one thing is for certain, we give Caesar his dues and will give Caesar more than he’s due if he treats us with respect and we will take that thirty minutes or one-hour break, come hell or high water. To be dismissed for not eating, is rather absurd and totally unheard of.
But let’s return to the matter at hand…
This scenario brought several questions to mind: What was the ‘authentic’ reason for her unfortunate and immediate dismissal? Why wasn’t she given a fair chance especially since she worked with the company since its inception? Was she fired to protect her from her own self destruction as she was apparently doing the improbable – working during her lunch time? Did she break the law?
A statement from the company’s human resources director explained that hourly paid non-exempt employees were required to take a 30-minute lunch break, a policy that had been in the company handbook for 10 years. The HR director said not adhering to the policy would constitute a violation of Illinois’ labour laws, who further emphasized that the location of Smiley’s desk (directly at the front door of the office), made this rule of particular import to her.
But how did she breach company policy and to an extent, the state’s labour law? According to Michael Leroy, law professor at the University of Illinois who also spoke with ABC news, that US state has a law that requires employers to provide employees a lunch break. He said however, that the law cannot be interpreted to mean that an employee is fired for not acceding in order to finish work. Smiley’s bosses managed to interpret it to mean insubordination and misconduct associated with her work which to me sounds like an afterthought, as if they were in a tizzy to find just cause for her dismissal.
The fact that she punched out suggest that she would not have demanded compensation for overtime. Isn’t dedication and enthusiasm qualities that bosses look for in their hires? That’s what I thought but as I am not a boss as yet, I will standby this conviction. On the surface, she seemed like a good worker, one who would go above and beyond to get the job done, but again, I am not a boss [as yet] so I can only speak from the superficial. Perhaps this lady was simply in the ‘wrong job, at the wrong time’. Perhaps she had too much enthusiasm for the job.
But bottom line, it was the bottom line that made her supervisor acted so irrationally which by the way, the company ended up paying literally for anyway. The manager perhaps thought he was doing the company a favour but the dismissal could not have been blamed on productivity, but on her refusal to acquiesce to the manager’s order to stop working and go to lunch. Perhaps deep down it was a bruised ego on the manager’s part.
Albeit, this is a clear example of how cryptic employment laws are. In the final analysis, one can never tell on whose behalf, these laws would rally as the table can simply turn in any direction due to certain ‘hidden’ facts that only precedence and interpretation can uncover.
###
