As an employment lawyer, I have advised employers on how to address excessive absenteeism in a legal and professional manner. * In practice, how do you help employers determine when absenteeism has crossed the line into being "excessive"? In order to help employers determine when absenteeism has crossed the line into being "excessive," I advise them to consider both objective and subjective metrics. For example, I encourage them to track the number of unexcused absences an employee takes over a 12-month period, calculate the average across all employees, and use that as a threshold for identifying excessive absenteeism. In addition to this, I also encourage employers to consider subjective factors, such as the reasons and circumstances behind each absence, to better understand the context of the absenteeism before making any decisions. * What factors matter most when evaluating absenteeism — frequency, patterns, business impact, or something else? The most important factor when looking at absenteeism is the pattern. If absences keep happening under similar circumstances, it can be a red flag. For example, an employee who regularly misses work right before big deadlines or when the team's workload is heavy may be showing a pattern that needs to be addressed. * What's a common mistake employers make when terminating employees for absenteeism? A common mistake employers make when terminating employees for absenteeism is failing to consider federal and state laws. For example, I recently handled a case where a worker was terminated without accounting for their protected leave under state disability law. This oversight created legal risk for the employer and highlighted the importance of reviewing all applicable regulations before taking disciplinary action.
What factors matter most when evaluating absenteeism — frequency, patterns, business impact, or something else? The frequency and patterns of absenteeism are very important. However, they should always be viewed within the context of what may be happening in the employee's personal and professional life. Health issues, family obligations, and major life changes like death in the family can all have a direct impact on an employee's ability to report to work. I want to understand the factors influencing each employee's attendance patterns to create a plan that meets each individual's specific needs. I encourage open communication with employees who may be experiencing difficulties. Open communication allows me to explore potential reasons for their absenteeism and develop a solution based upon those findings. This solution may help the employee improve their attendance record. Reviewing attendance in relation to employee performance can also identify if there is a connection between absenteeism and other underlying performance issues that need to be addressed. What's a common mistake employers make when terminating employees for absenteeism? Employers fail to follow a consistent disciplinary process before terminating an employee. Often, employers terminate an employee immediately after a failure to meet attendance requirements without first employing a structured disciplinary action process. This termination without prior attempts to correct the employee's behavior may give rise to unfair dismissal claims against the employer. This can hinder the opportunity to assist the employee in improving their attendance while meeting organizational expectations.
Absenteeism becomes "excessive" in the context of controlled claims and auto finance workflows when it interrupts those workflows, not necessarily when an employee hits a certain number of days absent. Leaders should consider frequency + criticality of position - if someone is routinely absent during key activities like deadline for production of evidence, lender response periods, or expected dates of complaint resolution, their absences have the potential to cause regulatory harm and monetary impact. A mistake I commonly encounter is taking action (discipline/discharge) based on totters without considering if the employer followed up with return to work meetings or job modifications. Always confirm with local employment attorney before taking action! Employers can also forfeit their ability to defend a termination if they track absence but do not have manager notes or evidence of attempts to help the employee. Prior to moving forward with a termination for excess absenteeism, there should be notes around reviewing the employee's schedule for flexibility, identifying alternate coverage for their workload, and meeting with the employee about their performance via writing. Any absences that are related to an employee's health should be isolated from performance based assessments of absenteeism and addressed through the accommodation process. When in doubt, progress through the steps of identify issue > meet with employee > document attempt to assist > reevaluate performance.
When there is too much unplanned absence in contact centre or digital operations teams, it shows up first as volatility KPIs — queue jumps, campaign slips and SLA misses — before it reaches HR. I coach employers to identify absence patterns relative to delivery impact (ex. multiple absences around major product launches or paid media cutovers). The worst approach is running time and attendance reports and trying to connect absence to operations risk and prior manager accountability after the fact. Frequently, the legal standard will be based on how consistently you applied your process vs. strictly what is written in policy. Example of one failure scenario: automatic time clock alerts issuing warnings - all while managers avoid the designed check-in meetings leading to a history of disciplinary action but no evidence of due process. Prior to termination, there should be written discussions of coaching. Opportunities to swap shifts should be considered. And written expectations should be established for the future. Automation can identify risk, but only a human can determine fairness.
Operations Director (Sales & Team Development) at Reclaim247
Answered a month ago
From an operations/compliance perspective, absenteeism crosses the line into excessive when it becomes the reason that highly regulated/customer-sensitive work is being reassigned multiple times. Exposure to error and complaints increases. One of several teams that I have coached in claims handling has faced challenges with a few employees who sporadically call off causing constant shuffling of claims. This leads to increased QA defects and customer complaints. Employers often move too quickly to termination without proving that they exhausted their options by testing all reasonable support/position modifications. Of course, all protected leave (medical, family, WFC/etc.) under US regulations would need to be ruled out first. The biggest safeguard for employers is a well-documented progressive discipline process. This should include return-to-work interviews, temporary reassignments, and written warnings that lay out expected improvements and a timeline. Oftentimes employers forego the "meeting" portion and simply rely on a manager's discretion. If something isn't in writing, it can be nearly impossible to defend yourself later.