Court Opinion

ID: 9929524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-02 21:04:20.217877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:27:12.481592
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 221244-U
                                            No. 1-22-1244
                                     Order filed February 2, 2024
                                                                                        Fifth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
                                               IN THE
                                 APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                          FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
ALYCIA PERRYMAN,                                                )   Appeal from the
                                                                )   Circuit Court of
           Plaintiff-Appellee,                                  )   Cook County.
                                                                )
     v.                                                         )   No. 22 L 50030
                                                                )
THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY,                          )
DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, THE                            )
BOARD OF REVIEW, and RUSH UNIVERSITY                            )
MEDICAL CENTER,                                                 )
                                                                )
           Defendants                                           )
                                                                )
(The Department of Employment Security, Director of             )
Employment Security, and the Board of Review,                   )   Honorable
                                                                )   Daniel P. Duffy,
           Defendants-Appellants).                              )   Judge, presiding.

           JUSTICE NAVARRO delivered the judgment of the court.
           Presiding Justice Mitchell and Justice Lyle concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1        Held: Where plaintiff was discharged from her job for misconduct, but the record does
                not include evidence supporting the elements of misconduct under the
No. 1-22-1244

                Unemployment Insurance Act, the circuit court’s order reversing the decision of
                the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security denying
                unemployment benefits is affirmed.

¶2      The Department of Employment Security (Department), the Director of Employment

Security, and the Board of Review (Board) (collectively, defendants) appeal from an order of the

circuit court reversing the final administrative decision of the Board, which found that pro se

plaintiff Alycia Perryman was discharged for misconduct by her employer, Rush University

Medical Center (Rush), and was thus ineligible for unemployment benefits under sections 602(A)

and 602(A)(3) of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/602(A), (A)(3) (West

2020)).1 On appeal, defendants contend that the Board properly determined that plaintiff was

terminated for misconduct where she failed to follow Rush’s policy for reporting absences claimed

under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (2022)), and that the

circuit court erred in reversing the Board’s decision. We affirm.

¶3      The following facts are derived from the administrative record, which includes Rush’s

protest of the unemployment benefits claim and “Record of Employee Discipline” dated June 10,

2021, the claims adjudicator’s determination and plaintiff’s letter of appeal therefrom, the notice

of telephone hearing before a referee, a transcript from the hearing, the referee’s decision and

plaintiff’s letter of appeal therefrom (appending limited medical records documenting her

hospitalization from June 1 through 4, 2021), and the Board’s decision. The record also contains

plaintiff’s pro se complaint for administrative review, the circuit court’s order reversing the

Board’s decision, and defendants’ notice of appeal of the circuit court’s order.

        1
          Rush University Medical Center was a defendant in the proceedings below, but did not participate
in this appeal.

                                                  -2-
No. 1-22-1244

¶4      Plaintiff began working for Rush as a gynecological oncology patient services

representative on September 23, 2019. On April 5, 2021, she was promoted to the role of “Access

Specialist 2” and transferred to the hematology/oncology department, where she remained until

her termination on June 10, 2021. On June 27, 2021, plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits

with the Department. Rush contested the claim, alleging she was terminated for “misconduct,” i.e.,

“unsatisfactory attendance”; that she had “received prior warnings” and knew her job was “in

jeopardy”; and that “the final infraction” was her absences from June 1 through June 4, 2021,

“when she *** failed to notify the employer’s Leave Administrator and the absences were counted

as an occurrence.”

¶5      The Record of Employee Discipline Rush submitted in protesting plaintiff’s benefits claim

states that she was on probation when she was terminated for “[u]navailability.” Although signed

by plaintiff, the document specifies that the employee’s signature “does not constitute agreement.”

The document states that on March 16, 2021, plaintiff received a “Level 1” warning for 8.25

“occurrences” and that “[t]he discipline form” for that warning “states that the manager reviewed

the Cancer Center Time and Attendance Policy with” plaintiff. 2 The document describes “Level

One” disciplinary action as “Documented Verbal Warning,” defined as “Verbal,” and defines a

“Level Two Warning” as “Written.” (Emphases in original.) The document states that plaintiff was

thereafter absent on April 23, May 26, and June 1 through 4, 2021, and that she reported these six

absences as FMLA leave to her department, but not to Rush’s leave administrator, The Hartford,

“as required.”

        2
          Neither Rush’s discipline form for the March 16, 2021, warning nor any written policy is included
in the record on appeal.

                                                   -3-
No. 1-22-1244

¶6     After interviewing plaintiff, a claims adjudicator determined that plaintiff’s failure to report

FMLA leave to The Hartford constituted “misconduct” under section 602(A)(3) of the Act and

that she was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits. Plaintiff timely appealed the claims

adjudicator’s finding.

¶7     The Department sent a notice of telephone hearing to plaintiff and Rush’s agent, Illinois

Health and Hospital Association Unemployment Compensation Administration Program (IHA

UCAP) Services, stating that the issues to be addressed included, in relevant part, the timeliness

of Rush’s protest and plaintiff’s appeal, and whether plaintiff’s termination was “for “misconduct,”

citing section 602(A) but not section 602(A)(3).

¶8     At the hearing before the referee, Rush practice manager Mitch Cooper testified that

plaintiff’s initial hire date was September 23, 2019. When plaintiff transferred to Cooper’s

department, on April 5, 2021, she had 8.25 “occurrences.” Cooper agreed that these occurrences

indicated plaintiff “missed those days and for whatever reason the employer counted them towards

*** violations of [the] attendance policy.” The transfer triggered a 90-day probationary period,

during which Rush was not required to apply progressive discipline in the event of infractions. At

the time of plaintiff’s transfer, Rush reviewed with plaintiff its written time and attendance policy,

including its requirement that the employee report intermittent FMLA leave to both the department

and The Hartford.

¶9     After plaintiff transferred to Cooper’s department, she took intermittent FMLA leave. On

the six dates at issue, plaintiff reported to the department, but not The Hartford, and did not submit

“supporting documentation *** within the timeframe for those dates.” However, there were “other

days” when plaintiff called The Hartford. According to Cooper, “each time there’s a date recorded

                                                -4-
No. 1-22-1244

to” The Hartford, an “automatic notification gets sent” from The Hartford to the employee,

reminding him or her to report the missed dates to The Hartford, and plaintiff “would have gotten

at least some of those” when she called The Hartford on the other days. Asked whether plaintiff

received a written or an oral warning about her absence on April 23 or May 26, Cooper answered

in the negative. Asked how an employee’s failure to call The Hartford affects operations, Cooper

stated it affects “how we assess our employees as a whole.”

¶ 10   Examined by the employer representative from IHA UCAP Services, Cooper confirmed

that upon plaintiff’s transfer to his department she had a prior warning in her file. Cooper, after

“pulling up the date,” testified the warning was given on March 16, 2021. Asked whether it was

in writing, he testified, “[T]he warning was a conversation. It was submitted via writing and it was

handed to the employee.” Had plaintiff reported the six absences to The Hartford, they would have

been excused.

¶ 11   Plaintiff was examined by the referee and testified that before her transfer her previous

manager approved the April 23 absence as “PTO.” However, plaintiff was not sure whether her

May 26 absence was excused. Plaintiff explained that since undergoing surgery the previous winter

she had been hospitalized “on and off.” On each day she was hospitalized from June 1 through

June 4, she informed her manager and “team lead” that she was out on FMLA leave. Regarding

her failure to notify The Hartford on those dates, she testified, “Now, that is my fault. I was under

medication. I was inebriated.” She explained that contacting The Hartford was not on her mind,

because she was hospitalized and on pain medication. After being terminated, she called The

Hartford and was informed that notification of The Hartford was required the same day or within

24 hours “or *** they would not approve it.”

                                                -5-
No. 1-22-1244

¶ 12   The referee determined that plaintiff was discharged for misconduct in failing to contact

The Hartford regarding her absences from work on each of the days June 1 through 4. The referee’s

decision quoted the two definitions of misconduct in sections 602(A) and 602(A)(3) of the Act and

determined that plaintiff was disqualified from benefits under section 602(A).

¶ 13   Plaintiff appealed the referee’s decision to the Board.

¶ 14   The Board considered the record without taking additional evidence, and affirmed the

referee’s decision in an order mailed on January 3, 2022. The Board’s decision largely mirrors the

referee’s factual findings and conclusion, except that, in finding misconduct, the Board cited not

only the June absences, but also those in April and May, and further found misconduct under

section 602(A)(3) as well as section 602(A).

¶ 15   In its written order, the Board determined that plaintiff violated a reasonable policy that

required an employee taking FMLA leave to report not only to her supervisor, but to The Hartford,

and that on all six dates she failed to call The Hartford. The Board acknowledged plaintiff’s

explanation that she was in pain and under medication—evidently referring to her testimony

regarding her June absences—but noted that she “was able to call both her manager and team lead”

on those dates. In finding plaintiff disqualified from receiving benefits due to termination for

misconduct under section 602(A), the Board reasoned that the fact that she followed the policy on

other dates demonstrated her “knowledge of the rules,” and that she had been “warned or written

up for other attendance issues.” In finding plaintiff disqualified from receiving benefits due to

termination for misconduct under section 602(A)(3), the Board reasoned that she had received a

written attendance policy and been “warned for attendance violation” on March 16, 2021.

                                               -6-
No. 1-22-1244

¶ 16   On January 25, 2022, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint for administrative review. The

circuit court reversed the Board’s decision on July 20, 2022. In its written order, the circuit court

reasoned that even if the policy plaintiff allegedly violated—which was not part of the record—

was “reasonable,” no “misconduct” under section 602(A) was established because the evidence

did not show that her failure to report to The Hartford was “deliberate and willful,” as that

provision requires, where she testified she was incapacitated at the time. See 820 ILCS 405/602(A)

(West 2020). The court further found the Board’s “sua sponte” finding of “misconduct” under

section 602(A)(3) was improper and violated plaintiff’s procedural due process rights where the

notice of telephone hearing did not cite that provision and where, at the hearing, the referee focused

solely on the definition of misconduct under section 602(A).

¶ 17   Defendants timely appealed the circuit court’s reversal of the Board’s decision. They argue

that the Board’s determinations that plaintiff was discharged for misconduct under sections 602(A)

and 602(A)(3) were not against the manifest weight of the evidence or clearly erroneous, that the

Board’s determination under section 602(A)(3) did not violate her procedural due process rights,

and that this court should therefore reverse the circuit court’s order and affirm the Board’s decision.

¶ 18   Employees who have been discharged for “misconduct” as defined in section 602(A) of

the Act and its subparts are ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. Alternative

Staffing, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 2012 IL App (1st) 113332, ¶ 30; 820

ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2020). A discharged employee bears the burden of establishing his or her

eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. People v. Petrovic, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 28 (citing

820 ILCS 405/500 (West 2012); Wise v. Department of Employment Security, 2015 IL App (5th)

                                                 -7-
No. 1-22-1244

130306, ¶ 18). However, “an employer who asserts an employee’s disqualification for benefits

based on misconduct has the burden of proving such misconduct.” Petrovic, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 28.

¶ 19    In an appeal from an administrative review proceeding, we review the decision of the Board

rather than the order of the circuit court. Id. ¶ 22.

¶ 20    The Administrative Review Law provides that “[t]he findings and conclusions of the

administrative agency on questions of fact shall be held to be prima facie true and correct.” 735

ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2022). Indeed, the Board’s factual findings will not be disturbed unless they

are against the manifest weight of the evidence. 520 South Michigan Avenue Associates v.

Department of Employment Security, 404 Ill. App. 3d 304, 312 (2010). Under this standard, we

will overturn the Board’s factual findings only where “ ‘the opposite conclusion is clearly

evident.’ ” Id. at 313 (quoting City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d

191, 204 (1998)). “[T]he opposite conclusion is not clearly evident if there is some evidence of

record to support the finding.” Cannici v. Department of Employment Security Board of Review,

2021 IL App (1st) 181562, ¶ 42. It is not the responsibility of this court, but that of the Board, to

weigh the evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, and resolve conflicts in the testimony.

Hurst v. Department of Employment Security, 393 Ill. App. 3d 323, 329 (2009). This court may

not substitute its judgment for that of the Board. 520 South Michigan Avenue Associates, 404 Ill.

App. 3d at 317.

¶ 21    Where an issue on review concerns only conflicting testimony and witness credibility, the

Board’s decision should be sustained. Id. at 318. Where an administrative agency’s decision

involves a pure question of law, it is reviewed de novo. L.A. McMahon Building Maintenance, Inc.

v. Department of Employment Security, 2015 IL App (1st) 133227, ¶ 37. The ultimate issue of

                                                  -8-
No. 1-22-1244

whether an employee was discharged for “misconduct” in connection with his or her work presents

a mixed question of law and fact to which the “clearly erroneous” standard of review applies. AFM

Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 395 (2001); Hurst

v. Department of Employment Security, 393 Ill. App. 3d 323, 327 (2009). Under this standard, the

Board’s finding of “misconduct” will be deemed clearly erroneous only where the record leaves

this court with the definite and firm conviction, based on the entire record, that a mistake has been

made. Cannici, 2021 IL App (1st) 181562, ¶ 43.

¶ 22   Section 602(A) of the Act provides that a terminated employee is disqualified from

receiving benefits under specified conditions where “he has been discharged for misconduct

connected with his work.” 820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2020). Section 602(A) defines

“misconduct” as follows:

       “[T]he deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy of the employing unit,

       governing the individual’s behavior in performance of his work, provided such violation

       has harmed the employing unit or other employees or has been repeated by the individual

       despite a warning or other explicit instruction from the employing unit.” Id.

¶ 23   Section 602(A) also defines “misconduct” to include violations of an employer’s

attendance policies. Specifically, section 602(A)(3) provides in relevant part:

       “The previous definition notwithstanding, ‘misconduct’ shall include any of the following

       work-related circumstances:

                                                    ***

                3. Knowing, repeated violation of the attendance policies of the employer that are

       in compliance with State and federal law following a written warning for an attendance

                                                -9-
No. 1-22-1244

         violation, unless the individual can demonstrate that he or she has made a reasonable effort

         to remedy the reason or reasons for the violations or that the reason or reasons for the

         violations were out of the individual’s control. Attendance policies of the employer shall

         be reasonable and provided to the individual in writing, electronically, or via posting in the

         workplace.” 820 ILCS 405/602(A)(3) (West 2020).

¶ 24     We address first the Board’s determination that plaintiff is disqualified from benefits

because she was discharged for “misconduct” under section 602(A)(3). In its order, the Board

found:

                “Because [plaintiff] had received a written attendance policy and had previously

         warned [sic] for attendance violation March 16, 2021, under section 602[(A)(3)], her

         violations of the attendance policy of April 23, May 25, June 2, June 3, and June 4, 2021

         [sic] are considered misconduct. The claimant is therefore *** disqualified from receiving

         benefits under Sections [sic] 602[(A)(3)] of the Act.” 3

¶ 25     Having carefully reviewed the Board’s final order and the record, we conclude that the

Board’s finding of “misconduct” under section 602(A)(3) is clearly erroneous. Section 602(A)(3)

requires a finding that plaintiff received “a written warning for an attendance violation.” (Emphasis

added.) See id. The Board found that plaintiff “had been previously warned, in writing, for

attendance violations on March 16, 2021.” However, the record does not disclose any competent

evidence that plaintiff received a written warning on that date or at any time before her termination.

         3
          According to the record before this court, the absences at issue occurred on April 23, May 26,
June 1, June 2, June 3, and June 4, 2021.

                                                 - 10 -
No. 1-22-1244

¶ 26   Cooper’s testimony does not support the Board’s finding that plaintiff received a written

warning. Under examination by the hearing officer, Cooper said plaintiff was not warned while

under his supervision. Questioned by Rush’s representative, Cooper “pull[ed] up the date” of the

March 16 warning, described it as “a conversation,” and said “[i]t was submitted via writing and

it was handed to the employee.” However, Cooper neither gave the March 16 warning nor

documented the precipitating 8.25 occurrences, as those events predated plaintiff’s transfer to his

department. The record is clear that, in representing that documentation of the verbal warning “was

handed” to “the employee,” Cooper lacked firsthand knowledge of the event. By itself, Cooper’s

testimony therefore does not establish that a prior “written warning” was issued. See 56 Ill. Adm.

Code 2720.250(a) (2019) (although at a hearing before a referee “[u]nobjected to hearsay

statements may be considered and given their natural probative value[,] *** the decision of the

[r]eferee will be based on the preponderance of the credible, legally competent evidence in the

record”).

¶ 27   Moreover, the Board’s conclusion that plaintiff received a written warning is rebutted by

the limited documentary evidence that Rush produced in protesting plaintiff’s benefits claim. The

Record of Employee Discipline identifies the March 16 warning as a “Level 1” action and

describes “Level One” as “Documented Verbal Warning,” defining the same as “Verbal.”

(Emphasis in original.) The document defines a “Level Two Warning” as “Written.” (Emphasis in

original.) The record does not establish that the March 16 warning was a “written warning,” as it

is not included in the record and Rush’s documentation expressly identifies the level of that

warning as verbal and distinguishes a verbal warning from a written one.

                                              - 11 -
No. 1-22-1244

¶ 28   We therefore find that the Board’s conclusion that plaintiff is disqualified from receiving

benefits under section 602(A)(3) because she was terminated for “misconduct” as defined therein

is clearly erroneous. See 820 ILCS 405/602(A)(3) (West 2020). Given our conclusion, we decline

to address whether the other elements of section 602(A)(3) are met, or whether, as the circuit court

concluded, plaintiff received inadequate notice of a potential violation of that provision in advance

of the telephone hearing.

¶ 29   We next consider the Board’s determination that, as the referee found, plaintiff was

terminated for “misconduct” under section 602(A) and thus was disqualified from receiving

benefits under that provision. See 820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2020). “[M]isconduct” under

section 602(A) consists of three elements: (1) the employer had a reasonable work policy, (2) the

employee committed a “deliberate and willful” violation of such policy, and (3) the violation either

harmed the employer or—relevant here—was repeated by the employee despite a prior warning

or instruction to cease the conduct. Id.; Oleszczuk v. Department Employment Security, 336 Ill.

App. 3d 46, 51 (2002). In order for employment benefits to be denied, these elements must be

established by competent evidence. Petrovic, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 26.

¶ 30   After carefully reviewing the record, we find the Board’s conclusion that plaintiff’s

violations were “deliberate and willful” is against the manifest weight of the evidence, such that

the second element of “misconduct” under section 602(A) is lacking.

¶ 31   We begin by noting that, whereas the referee cited only the June violations in finding

“misconduct” under section 602(A), the Board cited the April 23 and May 26 violations as well.

“Misconduct can be premised on either a single incident of a violation of an employer’s rules that

triggered the employee’s discharge or the employee’s cumulative violations of the employer’s

                                               - 12 -
No. 1-22-1244

rules taken as a whole.” Ken’s Beverage, Inc. v. Wood, 2021 IL App (3d) 190115, ¶ 14 (citing

Alternative Staffing, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 2012 IL App (1st)

113332, ¶ 30). However, Rush terminated plaintiff only after the June violations, and nothing in

the record indicates that Rush’s policy (absent from the record) permitted termination based on the

April 23 and May 26 violations alone. Indeed, in contesting plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits, Rush

termed the June absences the “final infraction.” Thus, to sustain the Board’s finding that plaintiff

was discharged for misconduct under section 602(A), there must be some evidence that the June

violations in particular were “deliberate and willful.” See 820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2020). 4

¶ 32    “Willful misconduct occurs where an employee is aware of a company rule and consciously

disregards it.” (Emphasis added.) Ken’s Beverage, Inc., 2021 IL App (3d) 190115, ¶ 14 (citing

Alternative Staffing, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 113332, ¶ 31). Thus, this court previously determined

that a nurse’s inadvertently falling asleep during an executive meeting after taking an aspirin was

not deliberate and willful. Washington v. Board of Review, 211 Ill. App. 3d 663, 667-68 (1991)

(affirming circuit court’s order reversing the Board’s decision that the plaintiff was disqualified

from receiving benefits). Similarly, a pattern of oversleeping by an employee did not constitute

deliberate and willful violation of the employer’s attendance policy where the record gave no

indication as to the circumstances of the infractions, save for the failure of the employee’s alarm

clock to sound. Wrobel v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 344 Ill. App. 3d 533, 538-

        4
          The referee, and then the Board, noted that plaintiff demonstrated “knowledge of the rules” or
policy by having reported other dates of FMLA leave to The Hartford, suggesting the referee and the Board
found her violations “deliberate and willful” based on this prior reporting. Although such prior reporting
would have necessarily predated the June violations, nothing in the record indicates it preceded the April
23 or May 26 violations.

                                                  - 13 -
No. 1-22-1244

39 (2003) (reversing the Board’s decision that the plaintiff was disqualified from receiving

benefits) (citing 820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2002)).

¶ 33    Here, plaintiff admitted mere negligence, not willful misconduct, in testifying that her

failure to report the June absences to The Hartford was her “fault.” She testified that at the time of

those violations she was hospitalized, “inebriated,” and on pain medication, such that she was not

thinking of the policy. The Board concluded that the June violations were deliberate and willful

because she was “able” to call her employer and team lead. However, the fact that she took this

step is not evidence that she willfully failed to follow a policy that, according to testimony at the

hearing, required that she also contact a third-party leave administrator. See Wrobel, 344 Ill. App.

3d at 539 (“One does not typically forget to do something intentionally; forgetting is a matter of

carelessness.”). Further, based on our review of the record, nothing therein indicates that plaintiff’s

medical and mental state was such that she could have contacted The Hartford within the period

the policy required in order to avoid the violations.

¶ 34    Even assuming the June violations were deliberate and willful, however, we find no

evidence to support the Board’s finding that the third element for misconduct under section 602(A)

is met on the basis of repeated policy violations after a prior warning or explicit instruction by the

employing unit. See 820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2020); Oleszczuk, 336 Ill. App. 3d at 51. 5

¶ 35    We find Zuaznabar v. Board of Review of Department of Employment Security, 257 Ill.

App. 3d 354 (1993), instructive. In Zuaznabar, this court held that employer Greyhound’s prior

warnings to a discharged bus driver regarding his prior “driving violations” did not support a

        5
         Defendants do not argue, nor did the Board find, that “harm” to the employing unit or other
employees resulted from plaintiff’s policy violations, which is the alternative basis for establishing the third
element of misconduct under section 602(A). See 820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2020).

                                                    - 14 -
No. 1-22-1244

finding that he was discharged for misconduct under section 602(A), where Greyhound terminated

him for making unauthorized stops and failed to provide “evidence regarding the nature of the

[prior] warnings.” Id. at 355, 358. Based on the record, the court found no evidence that the driver

had received “warnings specific to the conduct for which he was discharged,” whereas “the Act is

clear that prior warnings must involve a ‘warning or other explicit instruction’ that relates to ‘such

violation.’ ” Id. at 358 (quoting Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 432); see also 820 ILCS

405/602(A) (West 2020) (containing the same language).

¶ 36    Similarly, here, Cooper testified that the March 16 warning was due to 8.25 “occurrences”

predating plaintiff’s transfer that related to absences that were “for whatever reason” deemed

“violations” of the time and attendance policy. Neither the discipline form for the warning nor the

policy is in the record. However, Rush’s Record of Employee Discipline shows that tardiness or

early departure was an “occurrence” worth “.25,” indicating that occurrences could accrue for

violations seemingly unrelated to FMLA leave reporting. Moreover, we have identified no

evidence in the record indicating that plaintiff was warned, on March 16 or at any other time,

regarding violations related to FMLA reporting. 6 We thus find that the Board’s conclusion that

plaintiff received a prior warning within the meaning of section 602(A) is against the manifest

weight of the evidence, and that the Board’s determination that she was discharged for misconduct

under section 602(A) was clearly erroneous.

        6
          Although Cooper testified that plaintiff would have received automated reminders of the dual-
reporting requirement when she reported to The Hartford on other dates, section 602(A) requires “a warning
or other explicit instruction from the employing unit.” (Emphasis added.) 820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West
2020). Even if The Hartford’s automated messages, which are not in the record, could be construed as such,
Cooper’s testimony does not indicate that he had firsthand knowledge that plaintiff actually received them.

                                                  - 15 -
No. 1-22-1244

¶ 37   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court that reversed the

Board’s denial of benefits.

¶ 38   Circuit court order affirmed.

¶ 39   Board decision reversed.

                                            - 16 -