AN ARBITRATOR has ordered the reinstatement of a Benton County District court reporter who was terminated after the county said she had failed to comply with instructions to provide a doctor’s note to verify her absence from work was supported by medical necessity.

In a decision on January 15, Arbitrator Michael Cavanaugh said the court reporter was let go without just cause. He ordered that she be reinstated and receive back pay.

Evidence at the hearing was that the employee, who had worked for 11 years in the Benton County District Court, had been suspended for a week without pay after going home for the afternoon on April 9, 2003. The Union filed a grievance challenging the suspension on May 2.

After she was suspended for two weeks following further incidents, the court reporter submitted a certificate by an advanced registered nurse practitioner that described her condition as “recurrent migraine headaches” that may result in the need to be absent from work for about 24 hours on occasion.

The County found the certification insufficient as “it was not executed by a doctor and did not contain an adequate description of the condition and plan for treatment.”

On August 27, the employee called her supervisor to tell her she would not be going to work because she had a migraine, saying she already had submitted a doctor’s note. The incident resulted in a meeting of the judges and in a memo after they had met on September 18, 2003 the judges said they had decided to discharge the employee. They said that her action shed doubt that she even suffered from migraines.

In its argument to the hearing, Council 2 focused on the precipitating event for her discharge — her alleged failure to provide a doctor’s note satisfactory to the County to justify her absence from work on August 27.

Council 2 argued that she had previously provided an FMLA certification attesting to her recurrent migraines and her incapacity to work when they were severe. The Union argued that that should have been sufficient authorization for her to miss work that day.

The arbitrator ruled that although the court reporter may have engaged in inappropriate behavior in the past that did not justify the conclusion that she did so with respect to the August 27 incident.

“With all due respect to the judges, the critical inferences they drew (whether she even suffered from migraines at all) do not necessarily follow from the facts as presented at the hearing,” Cavanaugh said. “An employee with substantial seniority should not be deprived of her livelihood without convincing proof of wrongdoing,” he added.

“The County’s decision to terminate grievant for her failure to provide a doctor’s note justifying her absence on August 27 was based on factual errors and/or factual inferences that, while perhaps plausible, do not constitute convincing proof of deliberate wrongdoing,” the arbitrator said. “Nor does the record of grievant’s prior misconduct add anything to the equation here. Had the County viewed that misconduct, standing alone, as justifying termination, the County would have discharged her instead of imposing suspensions.

“It follows that the County lacked just cause to discharge grievant.”

The employer has filed an appeal of the arbitrator’s decision with the Superior Court. Legal Counsel Dave Kanigel represented Council 2.