She shows up late to work 176 times, gets fired, and ends up receiving nearly $27,000 in severance

In December 2012, a woman began working as an optometrist at an eye clinic in northern Spain. Her work schedule was clearly outlined: 9:00 AM to 1:30 PM and 3:30 PM to 7:30 PM. However, more than a decade later, her employment came to a sudden end when the company fired her for repeatedly being late. What seemed like a straightforward case of misconduct turned into an example of how a lack of prior disciplinary action can backfire on an employer.

The employee was dismissed in 2023 after accumulating, according to the company’s time records, a total of 176 instances of lateness. Most were just a few minutes after the start times of 9:00 AM or 3:30 PM. The company argued that her tardiness directly disrupted patient care, since the optometric exam — the first step in the clinic’s process — depended on her. Management claimed the delays were unjustifiable, damaged the clinic’s image, and showed disrespect toward patients.

In addition to tardiness, the company included other accusations in the termination letter: lack of teamwork, poor participation in group activities, and a lackluster attitude in public interactions. However, none of these behaviors had ever been formally addressed, warned about, or sanctioned.

The case ended up in Labor Court, where the presiding judge quickly identified a major contradiction: the company had tolerated the lateness for years without issuing any disciplinary measures. In fact, not even a verbal or written warning had been given. The judge also noted that the delays weren’t about arriving late to the building, but rather clocking in after changing clothes — a step required before starting the workday.

Two options in the ruling

In the ruling, the judge declared the dismissal “unfair” and gave the company two options: reinstate the employee under the same conditions or pay her compensation of $27,000 USD. The clinic appealed the decision to the Superior Court of Justice but the Social Chamber upheld the original ruling.

In its decision, the court described the company’s response as “irrational, disproportionate, and inconsistent.” It emphasized that, given the small size of the team, management was well aware of the worker’s habitual lateness. Despite that, the company failed to act for a long time and allowed the behavior to continue without consequence.

“Going from total tolerance to immediate dismissal without any intermediate steps, such as a mild or serious sanction, is an excessive response,” the ruling stated. Moreover, the court pointed out that the company failed to prove that the lateness had caused any concrete harm to the clinic or the team. The supposed negative consequences were vaguely outlined in the termination letter, with no supporting evidence — a letter that ultimately worked against the employer.

Get your game on! Whether you’re into NFL touchdowns, NBA buzzer-beaters, world-class soccer goals, or MLB home runs, our app has it all.

Dive into live coverage, expert insights, breaking news, exclusive videos, and more – plus, stay updated on the latest in current affairs and entertainment. Download now for all-access coverage, right at your fingertips – anytime, anywhere.