A disciplinary leave

Answer 1

A disciplinary leave of absence is a common practice used by many employers in order to act against workplace discipline violations. Frequently, such leaves are on an "unpaid basis" and that's permissible. In this case, an employee is suspended without pay for several days, or even sometimes, several weeks, or longer (though it can't go on forever - we'll get to that), as punishment for breaking company policy. If it was made a condition to employment that employees do not take smoking breaks, the employer is entitled to take disciplanary action against a person who violates this rule. The rule may have been stated in an employment agreement, conveyed as a policy during employment or included in an employee handbook. That's pretty clear and straightforward. I also believe the employer can instruct the employee not to be in contact with others at the workplace so as to not disrupt th workplace and to allow for an investigation to be conducted without interference. The issues raised in the question are twofold: 1. Can this state of unpaid leave go on forever? 2. Can the employer enforce the no-smoke-break rule selectively and single-out a specific employee. In terms of #1 above, different states may have different laws that apply and I am not familiar with the various standards. However, an employer must act reasonably, and in my view, for such an investogation to go on for months is not reasonable. You could turn to the HR manager and demand to understand what the causes are for the significant delays in resolving this matter. You may have a claim against the employer if no reasonable response is offered. The claim may be for unpaid wages during the excessive timeframe during which the investigation was drawn out. BUT. The employer might find different excuses so as to explain such delays, and as indicated above, the unpaid leave itself is a customary practice and not one that is unlawful In terms of #2 above, the issue is that the employee will find it very difficuly to prove that selective enforcement was going on. However, if proof of this is available (e.g., you can prove that the common practice has always been for employees to take a 5-min break and this was never raised as an issue by the employer, over an extended period), then, you may have a case of discrimination against you. Again, I believe hard to prove.