
Do employers have to pay out unlimited vacation time to an employee when employment ends? According to the California Court of Appeal Second Appellate District, when an employer’s unlimited vacation policy is not truly unlimited, they must pay out unused vacation time upon termination. (McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc., Case No. B290869 (Apr. 1, 2020)).
On April 1, 2020, the Second District Court of Appeal, in McPherson held that Labor Code section 227.3 applied to EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc.’s (“EF”) exempt employees because EF’s vacation policy and practice showed that despite the “unlimited” label, it was not truly an unlimited vacation policy.
Labor Code section 227.3 provides that if vacation time is accrued and vests, it is considered earned wages that cannot be forfeited. Unused, accrued vacation time must be paid out to an employee when their employment ends.
Unlimited vacation plans gained popularity in the technology industry as a recruitment tool and in the name of work/life balance. In a world where exempt employees access their cellular phones to take short calls or respond to emails during vacation, the desire to track and enforce vacation limits has waned, as exempt employees are entitled to their salary whenever they perform some work during a workweek.
Under an unlimited vacation policy, an employee does not earn specific amounts of vacation. Instead, the employee may take time off with pay whenever desired, and therefore, theoretically, there is no obligation on the employer to pay out any vacation pay when employment ends because vacation time never accrued. California courts had not previously analyzed unlimited vacation plans.
In McPherson, three exempt employees sued EF for failure to pay vacation wages upon termination. EF argued that its written vacation policy did not apply to the plaintiffs and that it had an unwritten unlimited vacation policy for exempt employees including the plaintiffs. Therefore EF was not obligated to pay any unused vacation time under Labor Code section 227.3.
The trial court disagreed. The trial court found that EF’s practice of approving at least 20 days of vacation created the inference that vacation time vests for EF’s exempt employees. Further, the trial court considered EF’s payment of accrued vacation benefits to another area manager, the same position as the plaintiffs, when she separated from EF in 2014, as evidence that vacation time vested for exempt employees.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling and concluded that because of the particular set of facts in McPherson, that Labor Code section 227.3 applied to EF because its vacation policy was neither unlimited in practice nor conveyed as unlimited. EF failed to set out its purported unlimited vacation policy – or any limitations it imposed on earning vacation wages – in a clear, express writing.
The court emphasized that its decision did not mean that all unlimited paid time off policies give rise to an obligation to pay unused vacation upon termination. Rather, the court stated, “[f]lexible work arrangements and unlimited paid vacation policies may be of considerable benefit to employees and to the employers who want to recruit and retain those employees. Employees and employers are free to contract for unlimited paid vacation, consistent with the Labor Code and governing case law.”
What this means for California employers
California employers utilizing unlimited vacation policies must ensure that its unlimited vacation policy does not succumb to the failures outlined in this case. Vacation plans, whether unlimited or traditional, should be set forth in a clear, detailed, written policy. Unlimited policies should clearly establish that vacation time is not accrued and not paid out upon termination. Employers should administer the time off consistent with such policy. Employers should also consider restricting unlimited time off plans to exempt employees.
Employers with questions regarding employee vacation policies, including the use of unlimited vacation policies, may contact the authors or their usual employment law counsel at Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo.
This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR presentation/publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.
©2020 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
- Associate
Lauren Shelby regularly handles a wide range of business disputes and employment litigation, including litigation pertaining to breach of contract, wrongful termination, harassment, wage and hour, construction defect, and ...
- Partner
Amber Healy has extensive experience litigating class actions and complex matters in state and federal courts throughout California. Her practice focuses on the defense of employers and management in class action ...
- Partner
Jonathan Judge advises employers in various labor and employment law matters, including drug testing, mass layoffs (WARN), disparate impact analysis, immigration compliance, trade secrets, privacy, technology in the ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- President Biden’s Administration Halts Department of Labor’s Final Rule for Worker Classification
- Rotational Employees Can Have Their “On” And “Off” Weeks Counted Against Their FMLA Leave Entitlement
- Ninth Circuit Issues Important Decision on Per Diem Pay
- Ninth Circuit Upholds Victory for Trucking Industry: California Meal and Rest Break Rules Preempted by Federal Law as to Commercial Drivers
- They Say Never Discuss Politics In Polite Company, But How Can Employers Handle Impolitic Off-Duty Conduct?
- DOL Permits Back-of-the-Restaurant Staff to Share in Servers’ Tips
- Can California Employers Be Liable For Failure To Prevent Something That Never Happened?
- Employer’s Delay is Fatal to Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement
- California Employers: The federal Department Of Labor’s Final Rule For Worker Classifications Does Not Eliminate The Requirements Under California’s ABC Test
- Court Holds California Law Applies to Offshore Workers on Oil Platforms
Popular Categories
- (43)
- (40)
- (135)
- (22)
- (6)
- (6)
- (31)
- (26)
- (22)
- (14)
- (5)
- (6)
- (4)
- (3)
- (3)
- (14)
- (9)
- (2)
- (2)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Christopher S. Andre
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Alicia A. Belock
- Eddy R. Beltran
- Rex Darrell Berry
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Alfonso Estrada
- Lauren D. Fierro
- Paul S. Fleck
- Robert Fried
- L. Brent Garrett
- Carol A. Gefis
- Kieran D. Hartley
- Amber S. Healy
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Mia A. Lomedico
- Jorge J. Luna
- Michael J. Morphew
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Justin R. Peters
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Lauren B. Shelby
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Ethan G. Solove
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
- Kimberley A. Worley
- Lisa C. Zaradich
Archives
2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011