An employer provided enough evidence raising questions of a former employee’s possible gross misconduct to ward off her summary judgment motion regarding a COBRA notice claim. The employer noted the individual had committed gross misconduct by quitting the job without notice, refusing to follow supervisor instructions and initially lying about why she left work early and did not return. A federal district court in Ohio found this evidence sufficient to deny the summary judgment motion at this stage of the proceedings. The case is Chandler v. CHS-Park View, Inc., 2013 WL 1945081 (S.D. Ohio, May 9, 2013).
In 2011, Bridgett Chandler was employed by CHS-Park View, Inc. as a floor nurse. At the beginning of her day shift on the morning of April 4, 2011, she refused to accept her facility’s keys from the nightshift supervisor, left work early and did not return. The parties dispute the circumstances and reasons for her departure.
Almost a year later Chandler and her dependent child sued CHS, contending that it, among other things, that it did not comply with COBRA’s notice requirements. CHS countered that Chandler was an at-will employee who had voluntarily quit her job and was “guilty of gross misconduct.” Therefore, it was not required to send her a COBRA notice.
Chandler sought a ruling in her favor; however the court held that CHS provided sufficient evidence that Chandler was not entitled to summary judgment: (1) the fact that she quit the job without notice, which amounted to gross misconduct; (2) Chandler acknowledging that she had refused to both follow instructions and accept the supervisor’s keys; and (3) the scheduling and time records showing that Chandler left work early and did not return.
Accordingly, the court held that genuine disputes of material fact exist on whether Chandler engaged in “gross misconduct” such that her termination from employment was not a “qualifying event”; therefore, Chandler was not entitled to summary judgment. The case is to continue with further proceedings.
As this case advances, one question may be whether Chandler’s conduct rose to the level of gross misconduct for COBRA purposes. It is important to remember that the gross misconduct rule was intended to be quite limited. Unfortunately, federal agencies have not issued guidance on specific parameters, so courts have taken the lead.
More details on this case — as well as five factors that should be reviewed before determining with certainty that an employee committed gross misconduct for COBRA purposes — can be found in Mandated Health Benefits — the COBRA Guide, at http://hrcomplianceexpert.com.