Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Ball v. Administrator
No. S-98-037 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 31, 1998). ; Clearinghouse Number: 52200
Description
Employee Who Took Leave to Care for Sick Child Was Discharged Without Good Cause
Abstract
The Ohio Court of Appeals held that, pursuant to employer’s
progressive disciplinary policy, employer did not have just cause
to discharge appellant employee from her job operating a grinder
after she accrued two major violations in a one-year period.
Employer asserted that employee committed a major violation by
making excess scrap and that employee’s two minor
violations—two instances of tardiness and one failure to make
a proper family leave request—constituted a second major
violation under its policy. The Ohio Bureau of Employment Services
determined that employee was discharged for violation of company
rules, and the trial court affirmed. The appellate court found that
employer had improperly reprimanded appellant for violation of its
family leave policy. Under the policy an employee unable to return
to work for five consecutive days may be granted leave if the
employee files a leave request before the consecutive absences
exceed five days. Appellant had stayed home for four days to care
for her sick child, worked one day, and stayed home an additional
four days. She was unable to file a leave request on the fifth day
because employer’s office was locked at the end of her shift.
After returning to work, she was reprimanded for violation of the
leave policy, even though she was never absent for more than four
consecutive days. The court found that appellant could not have
been expected to know that an erroneous verbal reprimand would
eventually form the foundation for her termination and then the
denial of unemployment compensation. Concluding that the leave
reprimand was improper, the court held that employer lacked an
adequate basis for appellant’s termination and that she was
discharged without good cause.
