The company I work for, because of the nature of the business, you are automatically fired when it hits your record. No excuses accepted. This relates to not only DUI offenses.
Not an easy situation you are in. If you give him the two days off, then it’s as if you are accepting and paying for part of his crime as you will be missing his services while he is in jail and paying him for it at the same time. Offering to let him work after hours or the weekend seems a good solution, but kind of defeats the purpose of the court not allowing him to do the time over the weekend doesn’t it. But you definitely need to have a written policy on leave time. Standard vacation time, sick time, and admin leave should be outlined. Check with other lawyers on how they handle their office help. Just because of situations like this. I really question the fact that you are standing up for him in court, knowing this is his second offense. First offense I wouldn’t question. But twice? This person has a problem with alcohol. It doesn’t present a very good imagine of you as a lawyer to potential clients.
And you’re a lawyer, obviously, so you’ll know that if you fire him, don’t tell him it’s because of his DUI. “With-cause” firings are a lot easier to dispute than “without-cause” firings. If you need an explanation, tell him it’s because he was unable to appear for work on a day he wa required to work.
Daniel
Katie:
Are you a solo practioner?
I seem to recall a thread from a while back saying you were a prosecutor - or am I dreaming?
As long as said employee is not the “disgruntled employee kills ten after being docked for jail time” type employee.
If true, might as well fire him now. That license is going bye bye for a year or so. Check the statute for exact details.
If said employee drove drunk during working hours and injured somone, you were on notice of the problem and could be held liable by a sympathetic jury. Might be best to flush the employee IMHO.
I’m having an issue here…
You say “my paralegal” as if you’re a lawyer. So itspounds to me like you know what you CAN’T do in this situation.
and
**
**
2 DUI’s, takeing more time off than you…I’d look into another paralegal.
I’m with DanielWithrow. As you’ve already stated that you are doing, you must establish formal vacation and vacation pay policies. If you would be willing to offer other employees time off (paid) on less than a certain period’s notice (2 weeks, for ex.), then I would think that you could not reasonably dictate what they can do during those days that they are not working.
Of course, you could dictate that time off will be granted on less than 2 weeks notice only in the event of sickness, family emergency, death, etc. However, if your employee knew 3 weeks in advance when he or she would be serving his/her sentence, then they should be permitted to request that time off without having to give the reasons therefor. They could be actually travelling or taking personal time, however they could also be serving time, or even visiting a dom/sub sex camp. You couldn’t reasonably stipulate that they can’t do that last one if you don’t agree with it; I can’t imagine you can reasonably forbid them from taking time off to which they are entitled under your policy to serve in jail.
It is not the obligation or the right of an employer to punish an employee for breaking a law. This responsiblity of meting out justice is left to the courts for good reason. Of course, if you have a legally-enforceable policy against hiring employees with criminal records, you may well be within your right to let that employee go, but I don’t see how it would play into whether or not you will permit them to take time off with pay. Also, unless the employee is required by his/her employment contract to have a driver’s license because of the need to use an automobile during the course of normal duties, I fail to see how that is relevant.
With all that said, I have no sympathy for this fool. If legally possible, I’d fire the cad.
Can I ask how much notice he’s given for the time off? Do you have a minimum warning time you require for time off/holiday requests? I dunno, surely you could just tell him, “no we need you on those days this is not acceptable”?
Respectfully, I feel that I have to take some issue with this statement. It is natural to want to punish this employee for his transgression. But in point of fact, it is not, nor should it be an employer’s duty to pass judgement on an employee’s crimes, as long as they pose no risk to the business. I realize that most of the employers out there allow do not operate this way, but this is how I believe it ought to be, so take that for what it’s worth.
If you were running a bank, for example, you’d have a right to fire an employee that committed a crime of honesty (e.g. theft), because having such a background poses a significant risk. But DUI is not a crime of honesty, it’s an error in personal judgement. Even though it’s definitely a bad thing, the crime in and of itself does not necessarily have anything at all to do with his duties at work. In the absence of a compelling business interest, leave the sentencing to the judge, whether or not you agree with the likely penalty.
Similarly, it is not en employer’s responsibility to decide what an employee may or may not do on his or her own time - of which paid vacation is a part. The entire purpose of paid vacation days is to allow employees to remain professional, by giving them an acceptable outlet to handle the icky personal stuff (including the basic human need to relax sometimes) without dragging the office into it, calling in sick, wasting time making personal phone calls, etc. If he wants to take a vacation in jail then I would argue that it’s his business.
Now, if he partied hard over the weekend and wound up in the drunk tank on a Monday morning with no prior notice to you, that might be different. But as long as he gives you the same notice you would expect under any other circumstances, and his absence does not cause a hardship for you, such that you would have denied a request for time off under any curcumstances, then he should be entitled to use paid time off if it is available. Since you say you would have granted paid time off if it were for something innocuous, like a trip, I would argue that such time is available and you should allow him to use it. Follow that up by setting a written policy that will allow you to evaluate his requests for time off and decide at some later point whether or not such requests, including this one, have been excessive in total.
It is also not an employer’s place to set standards for how employees get to work, as long as they arrive on time and driving is not a job requirement. Tell him that you will not give him any (additional) leeway regarding lateness and/or absence and punish him if and when his conduct becomes unacceptable. He’s not being paid to drive to work, he’s being paid to do perform his duties.
What I would require of him, as a condition of continuing employment, is that he complete a substance abuse program. You see, it’s not the crime of DUI that poses the risk to your business - it’s the abuse of alcohol. (I consider repeated DUI to be a form of abuse, even if he is not in actuality an alcoholic.) His current misjudgements could easily expand to more serious behaviors that would pose a risk to your workplace, in the same manner as the bank employee I mentioned above would be considered a risk. Given that his behavior does pose a risk to you, I believe that a substance abuse program is the compassionate and correct action. Now, if he does it again, even after counseling, then maybe it’s time to think about punishment.
A DUI conviction is the result of choosing to drink and then drive.
Jail time is to be expected.
Absence from work is due his actions, which resulted in an (unexcused) absence.
Second conviction? Slow learner!
Opportunitiy to make up time more that fair if there is productive work awaiting attention.
Doesn’t need a “mother.”
First of all, I apologize for my typing.
Second of all, wouldn’t the work performance of a paralegal be paramount in providing information to a lawyer in a trustworthy and accurate. It sounds to me like this person could put some, if not all, legal documents at question…
IANAL…But I’d hope the people who worked for me would be “responsible”.
And I disagree V. bis…I’ve filled out a few applications for employment and had my credit checked…My off-time; my personal life. The company CAN make personal life a part of their concern. Another law is FMLA… This law had to be enacted to protect people from their personal lives getting in the way of employment.
Oh, BTW, A DUI while in the military will earn you a dishonorable discharge…whether you get busted on OR off base.
It should not come as a surprise that I strongly disapprove of credit checks as a prerequisite to employment (unless there’s a very good reason, and I don’t believe there is most of the time).
But as I said in the last sentence of my first paragraph (please disregard the extra “allow,” don’t know how that got there), I do make a distinction between the way things are and the way they ought to be. I’m not saying companies can’t or don’t butt into people’s personal lives; I’m saying they shouldn’t, and here is an opportunity to put that into practice.
Now, arguably this DUI charge has impacted the employee’s professional life, inasmuch as he will need to miss work. But if paid vacation is available, and would have been granted under any other circumstances (or indeed the exact same circumstances, substituting “vacation” for “jail”), it seems to me that he is doing his employer little or no disservice in an objective, professional sense. So why drag personal feelings into it? Better to just make it clear that he is using some of his limited supply of vacation days, that he is expected to keep showing up on time and doing his job, that on his next offense the penalty will likely be more severe, and that if his sentence next time seriously impinges upon his work, he will not have enough vacation time to cover it.
Another point to consider: that 48-hour sentence is only designed to be an inconvenience and a deterrent - the judge must know that most people can take a couple of days off work and/or take the bus for a few months. It’s just an embarrassment, really. The next time, the penalty will increase, and with it the intended consequences to the offender’s lifestyle. He’s just getting a warning now; next time, the system will be trying to get him fired, and the decision to fire him will be easy.
I do agree that the accuracy of his work is called into question, but by the abuse of alcohol more than the DUI itself, in my opinion. When I spoke of potential consequences in my earlier post, this was foremost in my mind. But if there haven’t been any major lapses to date, it seems to me that the greater good would be served by treatment and compassion rather than discipline. I just find it hard to write him off as an incurable recidivist when he’s never had to suffer ANY consequences for his actions before now.
I will acknowledge frixxxx’s point that the military and law enforcement are an exception to my views above (that is to say, there is a “very good reason” for background checks and unyielding standards). These individuals are supposed to personify the law, and it only makes sense to hold them to a higher standard. Just like my bank employee example, it’s a question of risk - only in these cases, the employer is, in effect, our society.
Sorry, V.bis,got off the OP. In my view, vacation is something scheduled; personal time-off is a company thing; and sick time is immediate. I would evaluate the standard you wish to convey to the rest of you group and make that the policy.
Personally, I have no sick time. I’m sick, I stay home or go to the doctor my choice, no accounting on the company side…It’s my boss’s decision when I’ve been out to long due to an “illness”. Of course I have a laptop, VPN connection and a cell phone if I can’t make it in to the office…
I don’t think you’re being unreasonable, but I’m not a lawyer or HR person in any way shape of form. Esprix, I’d like to read an HR professional’s take on this. I also second strongly urging him to consider the fact that he may be an alcoholic. While I don’t know AA’s list of questions off the top of my head, you might want to point out to him that his choosing to drink and drive has endangered his job at least twice, not to mention his life and the lives of others. I don’t see alcoholics behind every bush, but after 2 convictions, I wouldn’t rule it out.
CJ
Japanese Proverb:
First the man takes a drink. Then the drink takes a drink. Then the drink takes them man.
Bricker, I am a “contract defender”, which means that I am on contract with the county to do all of the indigent defense. As such, I am not a county employee, and neither is anyone who works for me, so we are not subject to the county’s rules or policies. However, we are expected to be professionals- I think if I started showing up at work 2:00 every afternoon, wearing a bikini and carrying a 6-pack of Heineken, my contract would be reconsidered.
After reading all of these posts, though, I am going to contract my malpractice insurer and find out if they have a problem with my keeping him on- he's a good paralegal, really, and he has been working for me long enough that he knows my system, but if my insurer won't keep me insured with an aemployee with a DUI on his record, then I won't have any choice except to fire him, I'm afraid.IMHO, I think that the crux of your decision has already been made:
You’ve now decided to place your self in the situation of vouching for the character of your employee (and in all bluntness, attempting to grease the machinations of justice by doing so). In essence, you’re supporting this ass’s behavior by going there to support him in an attempt to lessen a sentence that someone without the connections wouldn’t get. So then you have a dilemma, should you give this person paid time off for doing something illegal but at the same time you’re in a way supporting this illegal activity. To me, either don’t offer to speak at the sentencing and dock him the pay OR speak at the sentencing and give him paid time off. Anything less I’d consider hypocritical.
Sorry if this seems really harsh, but I had a close friend that was killed by a drunk driver and it makes my blood boil when I hear of people DUIing.
I fail to see how being a paralegal, he should be required to have a license to work for you.
Because paralegals run lots of errands, which requires driving. They take stuff to the Post Office sometimes, hand deliver stuff, go to court, go to the library, etc. Lawyers have their paralegals do this because they are busy working on their golf swing. (Joke, relax.)
Katie, I can’t figure out why you haven’t fired this guy’s ass. What are you going to do when he gets drunk AGAIN, perhaps during his lunch hour, and kills someone on the way back to the office/courthouse/etc.? YOU’LL be the one who will get nailed when the victim’s family is looking for a deep pocket, ESPECIALLY when they find out that you knew this guy was a 2-time offender and you kept him in your employ anyway. IMHO, you’re asking for trouble. The risk you are taking by keeping him and hoping that he’s “learned his lesson” isn’t worth it to you financially. He’s already done it twice which shows he’s a dumbass and an unrepentant one at that. It’s not like paralegals are hard to find, surely you can find a sober one.
Just MHO.
If this had been a first offense DUI, I’d be inclined to cut some slack here. Second offense, no way. And please don’t grease the machine for him…let him get all that’s coming to him.
If I sound a bit harsh, my best friend was arrested for DUI three times. Well-meaning friends and relatives helped him get off with a slap on the wrist for all three. He later died as result of an alcohol-related (non-driving) accident. I still think that a harsh penalty for at least the third arrest might have been the wake-up call he needed to change.
Depends on state laws regarding employment and, even more importantly, that company’s HR policies and history. AFAIK, there are no federal laws about what constitutes paid and unpaid vacation time, sick time or time off, other than the 40-hour work week.
Esprix
Geesh, what a mess.
There are several points that I would consider:
One, as stpauler pointed out, why in the world would you put yourself in the position of speaking about the good character of a person who has had 2 DUIs? If you are truly good friends with the judge, then don’t use your friendship with him/her in this way. If you influence him to lighten the sentence, and he hurts someone, then you’d feel terrible. Stay out of matters that don’t concern you.
Secondly, fire him? No. Yes, it shows poor personal judgement but so do lots of other things. Would you fire someone who declared bankruptcy? Would you fire someone who was accused of abusing his children by an estranged spouse? I would stick to performance issues at WORK and keep my nose out of his personal life. I would implement mandatory drug testing once a month to ensure he isn’t tipping the bottle at work. Then I’d leave it alone.
Your vacation non-policy is asking for trouble. The next paralegal might rub you the wrong way. Are you going to be as generous with your paid time off with that employee? What if she finds out that you let employee x take off 20 paid days last year and wouldn’t let her take off 10? “Katie doesn’t like me because (I’m older, I’m black, I’m gay) and is discriminating against me.” And, in reality, you ARE discriminating against her. It’s far easier to put a simple, fair policy in place. You get 10 days off for 1-5 years of service, 15 days off for 6-10 years of service.
Would I pay him for his time off? See, if you had a vacation policy in place it would be far easier to answer. If he was within his 10 days a year, then yes. If it wasn’t, then no. And it wouldn’t matter to me if he was going to jail, going to his hearing, or going to a baseball game. You get 10 days off a year to do whatever you want to do. Since you don’t have a policy in place, I would base my answer on this: Had he asked you for 2 days off and not told you the reason why, would you have said yes? There is your answer. He was under no obligation to tell you he’d been arrested for DUI.
Would you fire someone who declared bankruptcy?
How many people die because of others declaring bankruptcy per year?
Would you fire someone who was accused of abusing his children by an estranged spouse?
Operative word: accused.
These two questions you pose have nothing to do with the issue at hand. There is no question that this paralegal has 2 DUI’s, thus putting innocent people in danger when he gets behind the wheel. He has not been merely “accused” of doing something illegal, and his crime put other people’s lives at risk. There is no comparison.
I would stick to performance issues at WORK and keep my nose out of his personal life.
So she should wait till he gets drunk during his lunch break and kills someone on the way back to the office, THEN do something?
She needs to cover her ass pronto. This guy is a moron, probably an alcoholic and he is not worth her getting her ass pounded into the ground in court if/when he maims/kills someone during office hours. They will go after her malpractice insurance, which covers stupid stuff that paralegals do. She’ll be the one to pay, not him.
Plus, all of this aside, how is this going to affect HER reputation?
Word gets out that Katie employs a repeat DUI offender, what could that say about her to potential clients and/or her colleagues?
I would implement mandatory drug testing once a month to ensure he isn’t tipping the bottle at work.
If she tests just him, wouldn’t that be discrimination? If she tests the whole office, that’s a shitload of money per month when we already know that just one employee is a drunk. Financially this makes no sense, why should she pay out the nose for drug testing every month because this guy can’t stay away from booze and driving? It’s much easier to fire him and hire a more responsible person.