Court Opinion

ID: 9846267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:38:21.682528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:41.024637
License: Public Domain

KLEINSCHMIDT, Judge,
Dissenting:
¶ 18 I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the majority’s conclusion that the employer *148required nothing more than that the employee report for work, a lawful and permissible act under the terms of the employment, ignores the reality of the situation. The employer’s directions to Lloyd necessarily required Lloyd to commit the unlawful act of neglecting his children. To fire him for refusing to do so would be against public policy.
¶ 19 I agree with the ruling of the Massachusetts court in Upton v. JWP Businessland, 425 Mass. 756, 682 N.E.2d 1357 (1997), that an employer need not tailor its job descriptions to the domestic circumstances of its employees. My view of Lloyd’s right not to be fired under the assumed circumstances of this case is a very narrow one. I rely on the assumed fact that there was no clear understanding that Lloyd was on-call to stand in for other employees and that the request for Mm to come in to work, having never before been made in Ms five years of employment, was not something he should have anticipated. I do not suggest that an employer could not fire an on-call employee who does not have a contingent plan for child care, or could not fire an employee who does not make adequate provision for child care during normal working hours.
¶ 20 The record suggests that the need to care for his children might not have been Lloyd’s real reason for refusing to come to work. I would reverse and remand for a trial on that issue.