Garner v. Department of Employment Security
Illinois Appellate Court
646 N.E.2d 3, 269 Ill. App. 3d 370, 206 Ill. Dec. 871 (1995)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Odean Garner (plaintiff) worked as a custodian for A & M Janitorial Services (A & M). Garner often received his paycheck late. On August 5, 1991, Garner did not go to work because he had not received his paycheck. Garner informed his supervisor, Susan Joyner, that he would not report the following day unless he received payment. When Garner did not report to work again on August 6, Joyner called him. Garner reiterated his explanation. Joyner told Garner that he was only hurting himself by not coming in and that Garner’s absence would be noted in his record. Garner did not report to work from August 7 through August 9 because he still had not been paid. Garner received his paycheck at the end of the workday on August 9. Thereafter, Garner reported to work and was terminated. Garner’s termination papers indicated that Garner violated A & M policy by failing to report to work for three days. Garner filed for unemployment benefits. A & M objected. The Department of Employment Security (defendant) referee found that Garner had been fired for misconduct and was ineligible for benefits. Garner appealed. The board of review (the board) affirmed, finding that Garner’s actions harmed A & M and that Garner chose not to report to work even after a warning that his job was in jeopardy. Garner filed for administrative review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hutchinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.