[14th Dist.] 2012, no pet. h.). In situations where “the employer requires the employee to travel as part of its business — i.e., pursuant to the contract of employment — the risk of traveling stems from that business and properly can be said to arise as a result of the employer’s business.” Id. (quotation omitted). Further, “only employer-provided transportation that amounts to a necessity from the employer’s perspective, and not just a gratuitous accommodation to the employee, is sufficient, without more,” to satisfy the origination requirement. Seabright, 427 S.W.3d at 448-49 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). It is clear, however, that even if the vehicle was not a necessity to the contract, the court can still find that the travel originated in the employer’s business. See id. (<HOLDING>). The Seabright court found that origination
holding that a note delivered by an employees mother which stated that the employee was having a lot of pain in her side and would not be able to work that day and the mothers statement that the employee was sick were insufficient as a matter of law to inform the employer that the employees request to take time off was for a serious health condition within the meaning of the fmla holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made holding that the employer had a protectible interest in its good will where the employee had direct contact with its customers and much of the employers business was repeat business holding that the company truck was furnished to the employee gratuitously and even still as a matter of law the employees travel originated in and furthered the employers business holding that employers policy which required employee to work without pay in violation of federal law was unreasonable and employees refusal to comply was not misconduct