11-32: Sick leave policy
Sick leave for Career Service employees is authorized for necessary care and attendance during sickness, or for death of a member of the employee’s immediate family. In re Espinoza, CSA 30-05, 4 (1/11/06).
In applying rigid departmental rule mandating discipline after a certain number of sick days, undersheriff’s assumption of leave abuse created irreconcilable friction with career service rules by leaving no room for the legitimate application of sick leave rule. In re Espinoza, CSA 30-05, 7 (1/11/06).
Agency’s application of departmental rule impermissibly violated appellant’s right to take accumulated sick leave. In re Espinoza, CSA 30-05, 7 (1/11/06).
Departmental rule requiring discipline after seven days of sick leave conflicts with sheriff’s collective bargaining agreement. In re Espinoza, CSA 30-05, 9 (1/11/06), modified on petition for review.
The purpose of sick leave is to allow leave for personal or family incapacity due to illness or for a death in the family. In re Conway, CSA 40-05, 4 (8/16/05).
11-36: Reporting and investigation of sick leave
A department or agency has an undisputable right to control the attendance of its employees in order to allow it to plan for staffing to accomplish its work. In re Garcia, CSA 123-05, 5 (2/27/06), citing In re Martinez, CSA 52-02 (5/15/02); Hubble v. Dept of Justice, 6 M.S.P.R. 659 (1981).
11-81: Leave without pay - policy
Rule concerns agency’s decision to grant employee request for leave without pay, not whether agency may assess leave without pay for an employee absence.
In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 6 (3/3/06).
Request for 90 days of leave without pay was not a reasonable accommodation when appellant analyst’s work was already backlogged, causing significant strain on other analysts and the agency’s obligations to process applications for minority contractors and appellant could not perform his essential work functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
In re Torres, CSA 97-05, 3 (2/21/06).
11-90: Unauthorized absence for non-exempt employees
An agency has authority to assess leave without pay and to impose disciplinary action for the same incident. In re Lottie, CSB 132-08 (7/7/09).
11-153: Requesting FMLA leave
Request for FMLA leave must be submitted in advance of need, or as soon as practicable after an emergency. In re Garcia, CSA 123-05, 3 (2/27/06).
Request for FMLA leave six weeks after the leave was to end is untimely. In re Garcia, CSA 123-05, 3 (2/27/06).
Appellant’s failure to provide requested supplemental information regarding seriousness of condition, abdominal pain and nausea, and failure to indicate whether request was for intermittent leave, justified agency’s denial of FMLA leave based on incomplete medical certification. In re Edwards, CSA 21-05, 5 (2/22/06).
Appellant’s failure to submit a timely request for FMLA leave to care for her daughter prevents appellant from now claiming absence was entitled to protection under FMLA.
In re Edwards, CSA 21-05, 5 (2/22/06).
Rule 13: Pay for Performance
13-10 F Merit date definition
It is not possible to apply this rule to employees hired before 2008 without reference to earlier versions of the rule, and earlier versions are not readily available to employees. In re Vasquez and Lewis, CSA ## 08-09, 09-09, 5 (5/20/09).
Though language defining "merit date" is imprecise and earlier rule versions that may clarify meaning are not readily available to employees, rule is not rendered invalid if it is susceptible to a fair interpretation that is consistent with the other career service rules. In re Vasquez and Lewis, CSA ## 08-09, 09-09, 5 (5/20/09).
Though a plain reading of the rule suggests that all employees hired prior to January 1, 2008 have a merit date corresponding with the PEPR evaluation end date they had as of December 31, 2007, the agency's implementation of Denver City Council Bill No. 44's limitation on 2009 merit increases must be construed in relation to earlier versions of Rule 13's definition of "merit date" and to individual appellant's PEPR paperwork for past years. In re Vasquez and Lewis, CSA ## 08-09, 09-09, 3-4 (5/20/09).
Appellant's interpretation of her PEPR end date as December 31 instead of January 1 of each year was not persuasive, where only one such end date appeared in her five PEPR years and, since no other rule change or other explanation satisfactorily explained the discrepancy, the most logical conclusion was the exception was clerical error. In re Vasquez and Lewis, CSA ## 08-09, 09-09, 3-4 (5/20/09).
13-50 Grievances and appeals relating to PEPRs
This rule's prohibition, at § 13-50 C, of appeals of any "other" aspect of the PEP must be read in conjunction with the immediately preceding rule prohibiting grievance appeals of all ratings save "needs improvement." In re Vasquez and Lewis, CSA ## 08-09, 09-09, 2 (5/20/09).
Though no aspect of the PEP is appealable save grievance of a "Needs Improvement" rating, where appellants do not challenge the PEP but rather allege a rule violation that has negatively impacted their pay, appellants have stated a claim for relief under the jurisdictional rules. §19-10 A.2.b.i. In re Vasquez and Lewis, CSA ## 08-09, 09-09, 2-3 (5/20/09).
13-60 Eligibility for merit increases and merit payments
Though a plain reading § 13-10 F suggests that all employees hired prior to January 1, 2008 have a merit date corresponding with the PEPR evaluation end date they had as of December 31, 2007, the agency's implementation of Denver City Council Bill No. 44's limitation on awarding 2009 merit payments must be construed in relation to earlier versions of Rule 13's definition of "merit date" and to appellants' PEPR paperwork for past years. In re Vasquez and Lewis, CSA ## 08-09, 09-09, 3-4 (5/20/09).
13-61 Merit date
General provision
The date an employee becomes eligible for a merit increase is construed in relation to § 13-10 F and earlier rule version. In re Vasquez and Lewis, CSA ## 08-09, 09-09, 3, 5 (5/20/09).