Week 7 Case Study, powerpoint

Cassandra Jenkins v. American Express Financial Corp.

David Trimble

MGMT-520

Week 5 Case Study



The Appellant was Cassandra Jenkins

She worked for American Express Financial Corporation as an insurance specialist since 2000

In January 2004 Jenkins was convicted of assaulting a nurse and was to serve a 30-day jail term

She was receiving a broken ankle treatment when the incident happened. (sJenkins v. Am. Express Fin. Corp., 702 N.W.2d 908, 914 (Minn. App. 2005))

Parties: The Appellant



The Appellant in this case was Cassandra Jenkins. She had been an employee of American Express Financial Corporation since 2000 and had been released from work in 2004 for failure to report to work. In January 2004, Cassandra Jenkins was incarcerated for assaulting a nurse at a hospital where she was receiving treatment for a broken ankle. She was required to serve a 30-day jail term and was granted a work release exception under the Huber Law but was unable to continue working due to failure of her employer to comply with the program. She later applied for unemployment compensation but was not eligible because of the reasons for her discharge from work (sJenkins v. Am. Express Fin. Corp., 702 N.W.2d 908, 914 (Minn. App. 2005))

.

2

The defendant in this case was American Express Financial Corporation and the Department of Employment and Economic Development

AEFC was the appellant’s employer since 2000

The company failed to comply with the Huber Law work release program that was presented by Cassandra Jenkins

Parties: The Defendant



The defendants in this case were the American Express Financial Corporation and the Department of Employment and Economic Development. The American Express Financial Corporation was Jenkins’s employer since 2000. The company discharged the appellant from work on the basis of misconduct because she did not report to work during the period of time that she was incarcerated. Although the appellant had been granted a work release by the judge who incarcerated her, the company did not comply hence she could not have been able to report to work. Therefore she sued the company because they had refused to pay her unemployment compensation. (sJenkins v. Am. Express Fin. Corp., 702 N.W.2d 908, 914 (Minn. App. 2005))

3

Cassandra Jenkins assaulted a nurse and was incarcerated for 30 days.

She was on a work release program but her employer did not comply.

Jenkins met with her supervisor twice before the April 18th incarceration date

He stated that other employees at the company had worked under the work release program and they would be willing to verify her employment for work release purposes.

Facts of Case



While receiving treatment for her broken ankle, Cassandra Jenkins was accused of assaulting a nurse at the health facility. She was charged and incarcerated for 30 days. The judge offered her the chance to continue her employment on a work release program but she was not able to because her employer failed to comply. Before she was required to report to the health facility, Cassandra went to her work place twice and talked to her supervisor before her 18th April incarceration date. The supervisor agreed to her request and even stated that the company had other employees work under this program in the past hence her employment would not be a problem. When she left the warehouse she knew that her employer would comply and that she would continue to work for the company through out her incarceration period. (sJenkins v. Am. Express Fin. Corp., 702 N.W.2d 908, 914 (Minn. App. 2005))

4

Both the respondent and relator agreed that at the time she reported to the warehouse she understood that her employer would cooperate with her work release.

She reported to the corrections facility on April 18

Attempts to contact her supervisor after were unsuccessful

On April 22nd she received a letter stating that she had to report to work by 26th or she would be discharged.

She was not able to report hence was discharged from employment.

Facts of Case- Continued



During the case hearing, both the appellant and the relator agreed that they both understood that Cassandra’s employment status will be upheld because the employer would comply with her work release program. On April 18th Cassandra reported to the correctional facility knowing that her employment status will be maintained and waited for the employer to confirm her employment status. When this did not happen, she made various attempts to contact the company but could not reach them. The calls made to the company went straight to voicemail. Therefore there is no way she could have gone to work. On 22nd of April she received a letter stating that she had been absent from work and was required to report by 26th or be fired. She could not report hence she was discharged.

5

After being discharged, Jenkins applied for unemployment compensation on 15th August 2004

She was disqualified by the law adjudicator since she was discharged on the basis of misconduct.

She appealed to the Unemployment Law Judge and the decision was upheld.

She later appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court

Case Procedure



After Jenkins had been incarcerated and was unable to report to work because the employer did not comply with her work release program, she was discharged from work. On 15th August, she applied for her unemployment compensation. However, she was disqualified by the law adjudicator who stated that she would not be compensated as she was discharged based on her misconduct. Jenkins went ahead to appeal this decision at the Unemployment Law judge to argue that her failure to report to work was not based on misconduct. However, the ULJ upheld the first decision to disqualify her because the fact that she had been incarcerated was a sign of employee misconduct. Cassandra Jenkins filed another appeal at the Minnesota Supreme Court.

6

According to the 1985 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act an employee who loses their job or has reduced work hours to a level that they cannot receive benefits can continue receiving compensation under their employer’s policy (Grubb, 2001)

This is not applicable when the employee is discharged on gross misconduct

According to the statutory definition of misconduct an employee must demonstrate lack of concern for their employment

Applicable Laws



According to the 1985 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act an employee who loses their job or has reduced work hours to a level that they cannot receive benefits can continue receiving compensation under their employer’s policy (Grubb, 2001). Therefore, an employee who has been discharged from their work like Jenkins was is to continue to receive compensation as supported by this law. However, This is not applicable when the employee is discharged on gross misconduct. The employer claimed that Jenkins’s failure to report to work is gross misconduct and also that the fact that she performed an act that made her get incarcerated shows her misconduct. According to the statutory definition of misconduct an employee must demonstrate lack of concern for their employment (Venn, 2012). This was not the case with Cassandra Jenkins.

7

The Minnesota Court of Appeal reversed the ULJ decision to uphold the decision to disqualify Jenkins from unemployment compensation

Jenkins's absenteeism due to incarceration did not qualify as gross misconduct

The employer was on the wrong for not complying with the work release request.

Holding



The Minnesota Court of Appeal’s decision was to reverse the decision of the Unemployment Law Judge to uphold the decision to disqualify Cassandra Jenkins from getting the unemployment compensation. According to this Court of Appeal Judge, it was not right to disqualify her based on gross misconduct because she had mad efforts to report to work but her employer failed to comply. Gross misconduct is applicable when the employee has shown lack of concern for their job. This was not the case with Jenkins because she reported to work and stated her problem and her employer stated that they would comply with her request but they failed to do so. Therefore, she would continue to receive the unemployment benefits.

8

After Jenkins was incarcerated she made a good faith effort to report to work.

She went to the warehouse twice to explain her situation and the supervisor assured her that her employment status would be confirmed.

She contacted them again after reporting to the correction facility but to no avail

Therefore, her failure to report does not show lack of concern for her job

Reasoning



As soon as Cassandra Jenkins received the news that she was going to be incarcerated for 30 days, she made an effort to maintain her employment status during the period of the incarceration. She reported to her workplace twice and talked to her supervisor to make sure that the company would confirm her unemployment so that she would be allowed out of the correction facility to work. Her supervisor even confirmed to her that they had had other employees work under the work release program in the past and that hers would not be a problem for the company. When she reported to the correction facility she was sure that the employer would confirm her employment. However, her attempts to contact them were unsuccessful. Therefore, she had no choice but t be absent from work because she could not be released without this confirmation. Therefore her failure to report does not translate her lack of concern for her employment (Flynn, 1992).

9

Absence from work due to incarceration should not be basis for misconduct that should disqualify a person from the eligibility of receiving unemployment benefits.

The case of Cassandra Jenkins v. American Express Financial Corporation is a good example of this claim.

When the employee is in prison and the employer has not confirmed their employment for work release they will not have the capability to report to work.

Conclusion



When an employee is not able to report to work because they have been incarcerated, this should not be a reason for them to be disqualified from the eligibility of receiving their unemployment benefits. As it was argued by the defendants in this case, the fact that the appellant committed an act that led to them being incarcerated was already an act of misconduct. However, the act by Cassandra Jenkins does not show that they did not have concern for her employment. She is therefore a good example of the claim that has been presented above. She was concerned about her job, showed up to report that she was going to be incarcerated for 30 days and needed to work under the work release program. However, the employer failed to comply hence she had no way whatsoever of getting out of prison to report to work. Therefore, it is not her fault that she was absent at work but that of the employer for failing to comply with the work release program (Grubb, 2001).

10

Flynn, P. (1992). Employment-based health insurance: Coverage under COBRA continuation rules. Urban Institute.

Grubb, D. (2001). Eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits. Labour market policies and the public employment service, 187-216.

sJenkins v. Am. Express Fin. Corp., 702 N.W.2d 908, 914 (Minn. App. 2005)

Venn, D. (2012). Eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits. Quantitative Indicators for OECD and EU

References

