Au revoir Novembre et NaBloPoMo 2007

First, let's address the law school exam question. Hats off to Bekah for at least taking a shot at the fact pattern. And Bekah has some good legal instincts. The issue of verifying the date of the service on the DVD is important. But R confirmed that it was the Sunday morning in question. And Q didn't challenge that point. Q's main argument was that the company's sick leave policy didn't specifically state that employees on sick leave couldn't go to church.

That might seem plausible if it wasn't so laughable. Come on. She said she couldn't work because her back hurt. But she can wear high heels standing on the choir risers, sway to and fro for a good 45 minutes during the singing portion of the service, and then be on catching duty for the prayer at the end of the service?

Then when she comes back to work, she brings in a note that says she was completely incapacitated all weekend?!?! Which is it? OK enough to go to fully participate in church or complete incapacitation? It's one or the other, but not both.

The suspension is warranted because the employee abused the sick leave policy. Sick leave is designed to make up the employee's wages lost when she has to miss work because of illness. Keep in mind that when the employee missed the shift, the company had to call in someone who already was scheduled to work a full week. So that cost the company the overtime wages that it had to pay the employee who filled in.

Well, it's been a fun and long month of NaBloPoMo. Jen is glad the month is over because too many nights were spent trying to come up with something half-way decent about which to write. I've enjoyed the challenge of trying to identify something worth posting. I may have missed the mark a few times, but I gave it a go. Thanks for reading all month. I may take a day or two off, but I like doing this too much. So you'll see a new post before too long.

Law School Exam Question

Here's your fact pattern:

Employee Q is scheduled to work Friday, Saturday and Sunday. On Friday, Q complains of back pain and requests to leave for the rest of the day. Her request is granted. On Saturday, she reports to work and after a few hours complains again of back pain and requests to go home. Her supervisor offers to let her perform duties that will allow her to sit down the remainder of her shift if she will stay. She declines saying that her pain medication makes her sleepy and if she sits, she'll just fall asleep. Her supervisor asks her if she is going to report to work on Sunday. She says no; she doesn't think that her back will be any better. Her supervisor instructs her to call someone to replace her on Sunday. She does and elects to take sick time for the missed day on Sunday.

On Monday, Q's co-worker, R, tells his supervisor that he saw Q at church on Sunday morning. Singing in the choir. Swaying back and forth. In high heels. R reports that at one point in the service, people are being prayed for at the front of the church and Q is helping to "catch" them as they "fall out." To the supervisor, this seems inconsistent with Q's complaint of back pain that required her to leave work on Saturday and rendered her incapable of coming in for work on the same Sunday morning. When Q next reports for work, she brings in a note from her doctor indicating that she had been completely incapacitated all weekend and unable to report to work. To the supervisor, this seems inconsistent with the activity that R described observing from Q.

The company decides to investigate the situation. They obtain a DVD of the church service to conduct their own observation of Q's conduct at the church service. It confirms what R said he observed Q doing. The company decides to suspend Q for a day. Q doesn't think that's fair.

This is a 3-parter:

1) On what basis could Q argue that the suspension is unfair?

2) On what basis could the company say the suspension is warranted?

3) Who's right?