Opinion ID: 1886376
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Effect of Illness

Text: District of Columbia regulations specify, however, that prior to a finding of gross misconduct, the employer must prove that the employee's actions were willful and deliberate. 7 DCMR § 312.3. [T]he regulations ... specifically provide that a component of `gross misconduct' must include the fact that the conduct was done `deliberately or willfully' or in `disregard' of the employee's obligations and expected standards of behavior. Larry v. National Rehabilitation Hospital, 973 A.2d 180, 183 (D.C.2009). The fact of absences or tardiness alone cannot suffice as proof of gross misconduct, without consideration of the bases for such absences or tardiness. This is so even if the absences or tardiness are repeated, although such a factor might be relevant in assessing the ultimate fact of wilfulness or deliberateness. Id. at 183 (footnote omitted). Genuine illness that prevents an employee from coming to work negates the willfulness and deliberateness of her absenteeism, thereby preventing a finding of gross misconduct. [6] See Larry, at 183 (Petitioner proffered a reason for her absence [that is, illness] which, if credited, negated any assertion that she acted `deliberately' or `willfully.'); see also Gilbert v. Dep't of Corrections, 696 So.2d 416, 418 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997) (Temporary absence from work because of illness or injury does not constitute misconduct connected with work of a kind that disqualifies a discharged employee from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.); Garden View Care Center, Inc. v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri, 848 S.W.2d 603, 606 (Mo.Ct.App. 1993) (collecting cases from various jurisdictions; absences due to illness or family emergency ... cannot be willful misconduct); Runkle v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 275, 521 A.2d 530, 531 (1987) (An absence due to illness constitutes good cause and does not constitute willful misconduct.); Kirk v. Cole, 169 W.Va. 520, 288 S.E.2d 547, 550 (1982) (When the absence is due to a genuine illness [ ], many courts adhere to the general rule that the absences do not constitute misconduct and will not disqualify an employee from receiving unemployment compensation. (emphasis in original)). See generally James D. Lawlor, Annotation, Discharge for Absenteeism or Tardiness as Affecting Right to Unemployment Compensation, 58 A.L.R.3d 674 § 14(a), (b) (1974). To prove that an employee is guilty of gross misconduct, the employer must prove not only that she was absent without authorization, but also that the absences were willful and deliberate. Therefore, when the employee responds with proof of illness, the employer must demonstrate that her absence was not caused by genuine illness.