Opinion ID: 2302398
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Absenteeism and tardiness

Text: Attendance at work is an obligation which every employee owes to his or her employer, and poor attendance, especially after one or more warnings, constitutes misconduct sufficient to justify the denial of a claim for unemployment benefits. Shepherd v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 514 A.2d 1184, 1186 (D.C.1986). [R]epeated absence or tardiness following warning is one of the illustrations of gross misconduct enumerated in the regulations. 7 DCMR § 312.4; see note 3, supra. So, too, less frequent or less serious absenteeism is listed as an example of simple misconduct. 7 DCMR § 312.6. But, being absent from work even frequently absentdoes not necessarily constitute gross misconduct, or indeed, misconduct at all. In recognizing, in Larry, 973 A.2d at 184, the common sense principle that [c]learly, employers have a reason to discharge an employee who does not regularly show up for work, we went on to explain that whether the employee was discharged for `gross misconduct' is a distinct issue which depends on the underlying reasons for the absences. Id.; see also Benjamin v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 6 A.3d 263, 268 (D.C.2010). The court added in Larry that the petitioner, who had failed for medical reasons to come to work on the day that she was discharged, may have acted `deliberately' in the sense that she deliberately did not go to work on that day, but it stretches any reasonable definition of that word as used in the regulation to think that a seriously ill person would be expected to show up for hospital duty. Id. at 183 (emphasis added). Although, in Larry, simple misconduct was not discussed in the briefs or by the OAH, and the court explicitly declined to address it, 973 A.2d at 184 n. 5, we conclude that intentionality or its equivalent ( e.g., conscious indifference to, or reckless disregard of, the employee's obligations or the employer's interest) is an element of misconduct of any kind, and that the court's reasoning in Larry, namely, that whether absenteeism constitutes gross misconduct depends on the reasons for the employee's absences, applies by analogy to claims of simple misconduct as well. In other words, if an employee has a broken leg, or if his or her child has been in a serious accident, or if his or her house has been set on fire, and if he or she duly notifies the employer of the problem in a timely fashion, then failure to appear for work, even repeated failure, does not constitute misconduct. An employee's illness is an unfortunate and involuntary event, which is ordinarily unavoidable, and standing alone, unintentional absence from work on account of illness is not misconduct. See Morris v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 975 A.2d 176, 184 (D.C.2009); Hickey, 28 A.3d at 1129. So, too, the courts of several states have held that excessive absences, where justified by illness or family emergency and properly reported to the employer, are not willful misconduct. Garden View Care Ctr., Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm'n of Mo., 848 S.W.2d 603, 606 (Mo.Ct.App.1993) (citations omitted). Even repeated absences or tardiness caused by illness do not constitute gross misconduct or, in our view, simple misconduct, unless the employee acted intentionally or in disregard of his or her obligation or expected standards of behavior, although the frequency of such absences may be relevant to whether they were intentional or should have been avoided. Morris, 975 A.2d at 182.