Worker vacation on a weekly basis when depression affected his work
This instalment of You Make the Call features an employee who claimed he was terminated while on medical leave.
Stephen Leach was a disaster recovery analyst for IBM in Toronto who was unhappy. He felt his work wasn’t challenging and often left him with down time. He tried to find another job at IBM but was unsuccessful, so he told his supervisor he was interested in leaving IBM for another opportunity he was working on with a friend. His supervisor offered to help Leach find another job at IBM but Leach declined.
On April 6, 2001, Leach took a vacation day. He later e-mailed to say he would be taking the next week off and didn’t know when he would be back. Though against normal vacation procedure, his supervisor accepted it.
While he was off, Leach again contacted his supervisor to add another day to his vacation. Leach also found out from his doctor he was under stress, though not work-related, which caused concentration problems at work.
Leach returned to work on April 17, but told his supervisor he was taking another week off because he was stressed. His supervisor suggested he take the time as sick leave but Leach refused. HR also recommended Leach take sick leave, but again he refused. Leach then took another week off, bringing his total absence to four weeks.
Leach’s supervisor told him on May 7 that if his absence was for medical reasons, he should provide medical documentation. If the reasons weren’t medical, he needed to be back at work by May 28 or he would be considered to have resigned.
The same day, Leach brought in a note from his doctor saying he was absent for medical reasons “until further notice.” Leach told IBM he expected to be off work for a few months with mild depression. However, IBM felt the doctor’s note was not enough to support a short-term disability (STD) claim. Leach contacted the occupational health and safety (OHS) department and he was sent an STD claim package. He also did some work for a friend’s business in early June.
When IBM didn’t receive the claim by mid-June, it told Leach his disability benefits were suspended and he was being put on unpaid leave until his claim was adjudicated. If his documents weren’t received by July 6, IBM would take it as a voluntary resignation. IBM didn’t receive the claim by the deadline and terminated him on July 11. On Aug. 7, it received his claim, which stated Leach was depressed and wasn’t working because of it, though it did not say it was job-related. IBM rejected the claim because his condition didn’t affect his ability to do his job and he wasn’t seeking proper treatment.
You Make the Call
Did Leach’s condition warrant short-term disability benefits?
OR
Should IBM have terminated Leach?
If you said IBM had just cause to terminate Leach, you’re correct. The court found the onus was on Leach to prove his disability to claim benefits. He refused IBM’s repeated recommendations he take sick leave, preferring to take vacation instead. He also didn’t say his depression was work-related and didn’t provide sufficient medical information.
Leach was disabled from his depression until May 31, the court found, but after that he was fit to return to work since he had worked for his friend. Since IBM paid him benefits until mid-June, he wasn’t entitled to more payments.
Leach didn’t communicate regularly with IBM during his absence, even when deadlines for the STD claim passed. He only responded when IBM contacted him to find out what was going on.
“Leach had been absent from his employment for nearly three full months and in a period of one month (June 11 to July 11) he failed to respond in any way to his employer’s reasonable request that he file a claim for STD,” the court said. “It had to be clear to Leach at that point that justifying his absence from work by filing an STD claim was crucial to keeping his job.” See Leach v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2007 CarswellOnt 9210 (Ont. S.C.J.).
Stephen Leach was a disaster recovery analyst for IBM in Toronto who was unhappy. He felt his work wasn’t challenging and often left him with down time. He tried to find another job at IBM but was unsuccessful, so he told his supervisor he was interested in leaving IBM for another opportunity he was working on with a friend. His supervisor offered to help Leach find another job at IBM but Leach declined.
On April 6, 2001, Leach took a vacation day. He later e-mailed to say he would be taking the next week off and didn’t know when he would be back. Though against normal vacation procedure, his supervisor accepted it.
While he was off, Leach again contacted his supervisor to add another day to his vacation. Leach also found out from his doctor he was under stress, though not work-related, which caused concentration problems at work.
Leach returned to work on April 17, but told his supervisor he was taking another week off because he was stressed. His supervisor suggested he take the time as sick leave but Leach refused. HR also recommended Leach take sick leave, but again he refused. Leach then took another week off, bringing his total absence to four weeks.
Leach’s supervisor told him on May 7 that if his absence was for medical reasons, he should provide medical documentation. If the reasons weren’t medical, he needed to be back at work by May 28 or he would be considered to have resigned.
The same day, Leach brought in a note from his doctor saying he was absent for medical reasons “until further notice.” Leach told IBM he expected to be off work for a few months with mild depression. However, IBM felt the doctor’s note was not enough to support a short-term disability (STD) claim. Leach contacted the occupational health and safety (OHS) department and he was sent an STD claim package. He also did some work for a friend’s business in early June.
When IBM didn’t receive the claim by mid-June, it told Leach his disability benefits were suspended and he was being put on unpaid leave until his claim was adjudicated. If his documents weren’t received by July 6, IBM would take it as a voluntary resignation. IBM didn’t receive the claim by the deadline and terminated him on July 11. On Aug. 7, it received his claim, which stated Leach was depressed and wasn’t working because of it, though it did not say it was job-related. IBM rejected the claim because his condition didn’t affect his ability to do his job and he wasn’t seeking proper treatment.
You Make the Call
Did Leach’s condition warrant short-term disability benefits?
OR
Should IBM have terminated Leach?
If you said IBM had just cause to terminate Leach, you’re correct. The court found the onus was on Leach to prove his disability to claim benefits. He refused IBM’s repeated recommendations he take sick leave, preferring to take vacation instead. He also didn’t say his depression was work-related and didn’t provide sufficient medical information.
Leach was disabled from his depression until May 31, the court found, but after that he was fit to return to work since he had worked for his friend. Since IBM paid him benefits until mid-June, he wasn’t entitled to more payments.
Leach didn’t communicate regularly with IBM during his absence, even when deadlines for the STD claim passed. He only responded when IBM contacted him to find out what was going on.
“Leach had been absent from his employment for nearly three full months and in a period of one month (June 11 to July 11) he failed to respond in any way to his employer’s reasonable request that he file a claim for STD,” the court said. “It had to be clear to Leach at that point that justifying his absence from work by filing an STD claim was crucial to keeping his job.” See Leach v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2007 CarswellOnt 9210 (Ont. S.C.J.).
