Unpaid Time off Vacation vs. Illness

[falseaccuses]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ


Hello was hoping to get some insight into the differences between allowing employees unpaid vacation time vs. unpaid sick time



General Example:

I am a small employer who offers no paid time off Employees get paid when they are at work. I grant unpaid leave on a case by case basis.

I have two fairly new employees both have been with me for less than 6 months.

One employee I allowed to take a 2 week unpaid vacation for her birthday last month because she told me that it was paid for at her hire.

The other employee has only missed one day in the past 6 months, but called out on Friday and said she needs a few days off to treat her "disability". Apparently she is having symptoms of something but she wouldn't say what. If she has a true "disabilty" it is not obvious.

I told her that I am a small employer and that I really need her here and to call me on Monday as to her status. She replied that I let XXXXX take a 2 week unpaid vacation just last month and that she covered for her so why can't the same be done in return? I told her that the other person gave me advanced notice.

She only missed one day in the past 6 months, but I see where this is headed.

From an HR or legal view am I treating these employees differently. Do I have to now give this person 2 weeks of unpaid sick leave if I gave an employee 2 weeks of unpaid vacation time? The girl who needed to go to on vacation gave me advance notice? I didn't really get much advance notice with the illness.


Is there a difference. I have no office handbook so I am trying to make the right call here as to what I should do.

 

[eerelations]

You are legally allowed to treat employees differently as long as your reasons for treating them differently are not related to things like their race, gender, religion, age (if they're over 40) and/or disability.

 

[falseaccuses]

You are legally allowed to treat employees differently as long as your reasons for treating them differently are not related to things like their race, gender, religion, age (if they're over 40) and/or disability.

So because I allow unpaid time off for vacation, I need to allow the same unpaid time off for medical even without advance notice, is that what you are saying.

 

[LdiJ]

So because I allow unpaid time off for vacation, I need to allow the same unpaid time off for medical even without advance notice, is that what you are saying.

No, that is the opposite of what is being said. However, because the employee has claimed to have a disability, that makes it a bit hairier for you...because you cannot discriminate (treat an employee differently than another) if they are disabled. You can however, demand that the employee produce a doctor's note (at minimum) to prove their disability.

 

[falseaccuses]

No, that is the opposite of what is being said. However, because the employee has claimed to have a disability, that makes it a bit hairier for you...because you cannot discriminate (treat an employee differently than another) if they are disabled. You can however, demand that the employee produce a doctor's note (at minimum) to prove their disability.

I apologize for my confusion.

If I don't demand a Dr. Note, can I just let her not return instead. I will agree to to let her collect unemployment instead so can look for something else. I really don't want to deal with this.

Thank you.

 

[LdiJ]

I apologize for my confusion.

If I don't demand a Dr. Note, can I just let her not return instead. I will agree to to let her collect unemployment instead so can look for something else. I really don't want to deal with this.

Thank you.

I do not know how long you have been in business, but it is unrealistic to expect that your employee's will not want time off or will not get sick and need time off.

That being said, you can fire someone for any reason that you like, even if its just that you do not like the look of their socks. You just cannot discriminate against a protected class. This particular case is a bit sticky for you since she has claimed to be disabled.

If you fire someone you don't decide whether or not they can collect unemployment compensation. The unemployment compensation agency does. Even if you protest them getting unemployment, that doesn't mean that you will win. If you choose not to protest that does make it easier for the employee.

 

[falseaccuses]

I do not know how long you have been in business, but it is unrealistic to expect that your employee's will not want time off or will not get sick and need time off.

That being said, you can fire someone for any reason that you like, even if its just that you do not like the look of their socks. You just cannot discriminate against a protected class. This particular case is a bit sticky for you since she has claimed to be disabled.

If you fire someone you don't decide whether or not they can collect unemployment compensation. The unemployment compensation agency does. Even if you protest them getting unemployment, that doesn't mean that you will win. If you choose not to protest that does make it easier for the employee.

7 years, most people come and go and do not stay long generally. Its a title place. I understand that employees need time off and I allowed it for a vacation but that is because I have advanced notice of a vacation. I don't see why being "disabled" has anything to do with it. If an employee has the flu for two weeks and is off of work for two weeks that is not a disability that is a cold and I can terminate them for excessive absences, but you mean to say that if an employee has a legitimate disability they can be off for two weeks as well and I can't fire them. The person is still out of work for two weeks. So if she just has the flu I can terminate her but if she has lyme disease I can't? doesn't make sensse to me but thank you.

 

[eerelations]

"Let her not return" = firing her. And firing someone because she is ill could be highly illegal. You need to tread very very carefully here.

 

[eerelations]

I really don't want to deal with this.

The only way to avoid having to deal with stuff like this is to not have employees.

And yes, you're correct about the difference between a cold and an actual disability. It may not make any sense to you but it does to everyone else, including lawmakers and enforcers.

 

[LdiJ]

7 years, most people come and go and do not stay long generally. Its a title place. I understand that employees need time off and I allowed it for a vacation but that is because I have advanced notice of a vacation. I don't see why being "disabled" has anything to do with it. If an employee has the flu for two weeks and is off of work for two weeks that is not a disability that is a cold and I can terminate them for excessive absences, but you mean to say that if an employee has a legitimate disability they can be off for two weeks as well and I can't fire them. The person is still out of work for two weeks. So if she just has the flu I can terminate her but if she has lyme disease I can't? doesn't make sensse to me but thank you.

Does it occur to you that people do not stay long because of your policies regarding vacations and sick days? Does it occur to you that the longer you keep an employee the more efficient and hard working that employee can become if you treat that employee with respect and consideration? If you feel that you have the right to approve or disapprove an actual sick day its no wonder your employees don't stay long.

 

[cbg]

HR person chiming in here...

How many employees, overall, do you have?

 

[ecmst12]

Took way too long for someone to ask CBG's question...