Vacation Pay

[buwalla]

I was terminated from my job on 08/05/2009 and my pay stub says i have 1280 hours of vacation time comming. I was not paid. They try to say its because im part time but i get over 40 hours a week and have for the last 3 years. If thats the case the why is it on my pay stub? As far as im concerned they owe me this money. Well im here because i want your advice.:yes:

 

[Patricia_Young]

What state did you work in? Makes all the difference. BTW, showing a balance on the paystub does not, in and of itself, confer any legal obligation to pay it out at termination.

 

[Green_Hornet]

In any state you should recover the earned vaction. Sounds like you have a small claims action. Keep the pay stubs any agreement you have with your employer,and file a small claims action for unpaid vacation.

 

[Patricia_Young]

In any state you should recover the earned vaction. Sounds like you have a small claims action. Keep the pay stubs any agreement you have with your employer,and file a small claims action for unpaid vacation.

That just isn't true. Unless wage payment laws require it or the employee has a contract requiring it, it does not have to be paid. Every state is different. That's why I asked what state (to which I did not receive a reply).

 

[Green_Hornet]

Oh it is true whether it is in state wage & hour laws or not. If it is not in the state wage and hour laws it falls under a common law theory of recovery. The court would look at the terms of the vacation agreement and rule under the terms agreed upon. It's no different than wages in that regards, in that it is earned.

 

[Patricia_Young]

The intent to create a contract and bind the employer would be required. Not every company policy, offer letter, employment agreement, employee handbook, etc. does so. That is just way too broad a statement to make.

But until the OP comes back and answers the question, we can't do anything else. Who knows, maybe the OP is in a state where payout is unconditional under wage payment laws.

 

[Green_Hornet]

The intent to create a contract and bind the employer would be required. Not every company policy, offer letter, employment agreement, employee handbook, etc. does so.

No every employment agreement that is agreed upon is enforceable in a court of equity. An offer and acceptance makes an agreement with consideration. If not written, the agreement is oral.

Oral contract is legal and may be enforced by action at law. If it is memorialized in a company policy, offer letter, employment agreement, employee handbook this would certainly be in the employees favor in terms of evidence.

 

[Patricia_Young]

Looks like the OP isn't coming back anyway, so you believe what you like. I can just tell you that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there where a company policy or offer letter or employee handbook has been determineded by a court of law NOT to rise to the level of an enforceable contractual obligation.

 

[Green_Hornet]

OK so you are telling me that an employer can tell an employee that he is entitled to x amount of vacation a year. The employee works that whole year,the employer lays the employee off and does not have to pay the vacation as agreed upon after the employee has performed? That is not how it works, going forward an employer can change or even eliminate vacation, however any earned benefit that has value can not be dismissed without payment. Once an agreement with consideration is entered, and a party performs, the other party owes the consideration as agreed.

Whether the O.P is coming back does not matter, I am trying to help you out, you got some bad information somewhere.

 

[Patricia_Young]

That's exactly what I'm telling you is a possibility. "You earn XX vacation per year, accrued monthly (or per pay period or whatever) and you may take paid vacation as it is earned with management approval" is not the same as "we will pay any accrued, untaken vacation at termination under any and all circumstances".

And I am not discussing this any further with you. I know.

 

[Green_Hornet]

That's exactly what I'm telling you is a possibility. "You earn XX vacation per year, accrued monthly (or per pay period or whatever) and you may take paid vacation as it is earned with management approval" is not the same as "we will pay any accrued, untaken vacation at termination under any and all circumstances".

You're trying to help ME out? Wage and hour compliance is a big component of my profession, in which I have decades of practical experience. Please don't be condescending. It's not attractive.

Yes of course management has to approve vacation that is not in question. If management denied vacation,that does not change the fact the vacation is still due as agreed upon, if the employee is laid off the vacation is still due as the poster is asking the employer has to pay up, unless the vacation agreed upon was unpaid vacation to begin with.

You seem to believe the employer can create a vacation policy, the employee can perform the work under the agreed upon terms, management can deny the vacation, lay the employee off as means of avoiding the promised vacation.

Are you telling me you are working at a place that routinely engages in these type of charades? Because thats not legal unless there is some type of satisfaction clause in the vacation agreement. Such a promise would be illusory and are not legally binding.

Please re-read the post: The posters has earned vacation to the tune of 1280 hours. He has been there for three years, it is safe to say he understands the companies vacation policy. The employee has stubs indicating earned vacation. The company refuses to pay claiming some type of exemption because the employee is part time.

The poster has met the burden of a Prima Facia case. The employer must show why he does not have to pay the employee under the agreed upon terms. If the employer can show the court the employee is not entiteled to the vacation under the policy the employer will prevail, if not the emplyee will prevail.

Now do you feel that is condescending?

 

[Green_Hornet]

I can just tell you that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there where a company policy or offer letter or employee handbook has been determineded by a court of law NOT to rise to the level of an enforceable contractual obligation.

I seriously doubt that, at least not in terms of earned benefits and wages. In some states handbooks and such do not rise to the level of a contract in so far as termination which can be trumped by the "at-will" presumption, but not on earned wages and benefits. Otherwise an employer could promise any amount of earned paid vacation, deny earned vacation then lay the employee off to avoid the agreed upon vacation.

If you do have anecdotal evidence or case that says one party can change the terms of a bilateral contract. That I'd love to see. I'll tell my mortgage company to stick it.