This week, the Montgomery County Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of unemployment
compensation to a former police officer who had been told that he could not
return to work without a complete medical release containing no medical
restrictions. Adams
v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs.,
2018-Ohio-2045. Because the claimant had been given the
opportunity to use the employer’s ADA policy to seek an extension of his
medical leave and had unreasonably failed to provide an updated medical
certification upon request, his unemployment was found to be voluntary, and
thus, not compensable. It did not matter
that the employee’s physician had previously informed his employer that he
could not return to work without medical restrictions for at least another
month. It also did not help his cause
that he failed to appear at an internal disciplinary hearing to determine
whether he was absent without leave or insubordinate to explain his position. On the contrary, he had already applied for
unemployment compensation before the hearing had even been held to determine
his fate and a month before his employment was formally terminated. Because he did not take reasonable steps to
preserve his employment, his unemployment was determined to be voluntary and he
was denied unemployment.
According to the Court’s opinion, the claimant had been on
FMLA leave following an off-duty injury to his knee in June 2015. He exhausted his FMLA, sick and vacation
leave and had been allowed to work restricted duty until May 2016. On July 8, 2016, he was directed to update
his medical certification by July 12 or he would be considered absent without
leave and/or insubordinate, etc. He was
also informed that he needed a release without medical restrictions, but was
also directed to the ADA policy in case he wanted to request an
accommodation. Believing that his
former medical certification (releasing him to return to work in August) was
sufficient, the claimant did not comply and applied for unemployment
compensation on July 21. He was declared
awol and a hearing was held on August 6, but he did not attend. Without any communication from him (other
than his unemployment compensation application), he was discharged on August
26. Although his initial application
was approved, the hearing officer reversed because the claimant had been given
the opportunity to return to work (with an unrestricted medical release) or to
seek an extension of his medical leave of absence (through the ADA
policy). By refusing to comply with the
employer’s reasonable request for an updated medical certification, the
claimant voluntarily chose to be unemployment through no fault of the employer.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of
recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not
apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can be changed or amended without
notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If
you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or
retain an employment attorney.
