Dana's Attendance Points
Attendance policy: one point per unexcused absence, half a point per unexcused late arrival over 15 minutes. Three points within any rolling 90-day period triggers a written warning. Points drop off 90 days after the date of the occurrence. An absence supported by a doctor's note is excused if the note reaches Human Resources within 3 business days of the employee's return to work. Approved vacation and up to 3 days of bereavement leave are excused. Late arrivals of 15 minutes or less are recorded but not scored.
Dana's record: Feb 3, unexcused absence. Feb 20, late 25 minutes. Mar 10–11, absent, returned Mar 12, note to HR Mar 13. Apr 2, late 40 minutes. Apr 20, late 10 minutes. Today is Apr 30.
1. As of April 30, how many points does Dana have in the rolling 90-day window, and has she triggered a written warning?
Read the worked answer
Window: 90 days back from April 30 reaches January 30, so every listed occurrence except none falls inside it.
| Date | Event | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 3 | Unexcused absence | 1.0 |
| Feb 20 | Late 25 min (over 15) | 0.5 |
| Mar 10–11 | Absent, note to HR within 3 business days of return | 0 |
| Apr 2 | Late 40 min (over 15) | 0.5 |
| Apr 20 | Late 10 min (15 or less) | 0 |
Total: 2.0 points. That is below the 3-point threshold, so no written warning is triggered.
Two traps: the April 20 late arrival is recorded but unscored, and the March absence must be checked for note timing - she returned March 12 and the note reached HR March 13, inside the three-business-day limit, so both days are excused.
2. On May 5, Dana misses a shift without notice, which is an unexcused absence. How many points does she have now, and does this trigger the warning?
Read the worked answer
Recount before adding the new absence. Points drop off 90 days after the occurrence. Ninety days after February 3 is May 4, so by May 5 the oldest point has expired.
| Date | Event | Points |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 3 | Expired May 4 | 0 |
| Feb 20 | Late 25 min | 0.5 |
| Apr 2 | Late 40 min | 0.5 |
| May 5 | Unexcused absence | 1.0 |
Total: 2.0 points. Still below 3 - no written warning, even though she has now been absent twice in the window.
This is the judgement call the policy tests: adding 1.0 to her April 30 total would suggest 3.0 and a warning, but the February 3 point falls off the day before, so a mechanical addition gets the answer wrong. Note how narrow the margin is: her next scored occurrence of any kind takes her to the threshold.
3. Dana argues that her March doctor's note should also clear the February 3 absence, since both were part of the same illness. How should HR respond?
Read the worked answer
The note covers March 10–11 only. The policy excuses an absence "supported by a doctor's note" submitted within three business days of the return to work, and a note documents the dates of care it names. Nothing in the policy allows a note to be applied retroactively to an earlier, separate occurrence - and February 3 is more than a month before the March absence, with the late arrivals in between.
HR's response should be written and specific: the March note was received on time and the March absence is excused; the February 3 absence stands as unexcused, and it has in any case already dropped off the record as of May 4.
That last point matters practically: HR should say so, because Dana's real grievance is about a point that no longer affects her standing, and letting her believe otherwise invites an appeal over nothing.