Insights
Publications

California Court Confirms that Vacation Accrual Can Be Restricted for New Employees

8/2/2017 Articles

Employers seeking to limit the vacation accrual of new employees just received some welcome news.  The California Court of Appeal reaffirmed that California law does not prohibit employers from imposing a waiting period before vacation time begins to accrue, so long as the employer’s policy is clearly stated. Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc., No. D070555 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th Jul. 28, 2017).

California Vacation Pay Statute and Case Law

California law requires employers to compensate employees for vested, unused vacation time at the time of termination. The California Labor Code provides, “Unless otherwise prohibited by a collective-bargaining agreement, whenever a contract of employment or employer policy provides for paid vacations, and an employee is terminated without having taken off his vested vacation time, all vested vacation shall be paid to him as wages at his final rate in accordance with such contract or of employment or employer policy respecting eligibility or time served; provided, however, that an employment contract or employer policy shall not provide for forfeiture of vested vacation time upon termination ….” Cal. Lab. Code § 227.3. The California Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to mean that once vested, the right to vacation pay is protected and may not be forfeited. Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co., 31 Cal. 3d 774, 779 (1982).

After the California Supreme Court’s Suastez decision, the California Court of Appeal held that an employer’s policy may provide a waiting period before the employee becomes eligible to earn paid vacation time. Owen v. Macy’s Inc., 175 Cal. App. 4th 462 (2009). The Owen court determined that Suastez’s rule against forfeiture of vested vacation pay does not prohibit such a policy, but that the policy must be clear in order to be enforceable. Id.

The Court of Appeal’s Analysis in Minnick

In Minnick, the plaintiff challenged his joint employers’ vacation policy which provided a one-year waiting period before vacation time would begin to accrue. The policy stated:

“All employees earn 1 week of vacation after two years of service. This means that after you have completed your first anniversary with the company, you are entitled to take one week of paid vacation, and after the completion of two years service, you will accrue two weeks paid vacation per year. This does not mean that you earn or accrue 1/12th of one week’s vacation accrual each month during your first year. You must complete one year of service with the company to be entitled to one week vacation.”

The Minnick plaintiff worked for the employers for six months and, consistent with the policy, the employers did not pay the plaintiff any vacation wages upon termination because he was employed for less than one year. The plaintiff then sued the joint employers to recover vacation wages, arguing that (1) the employers’ policy unlawfully contracted around the rule against forfeiture of vacation wages, and (2) alternatively, the employers’ policy did not clearly provide for a waiting period. The trial court sustained the employers’ demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment in the employers’ favor, and the plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling and reasoned that because an employer may lawfully decide not to provide paid vacation at all, it can also decide to provide paid vacation only after a specified waiting period. The court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the policy constituted an unlawful forfeiture of vacation wages, holding that “[a]n employer does not ‘contract around’ the forfeiture prohibition by providing that an employee does not begin to earn vacation pay until a certain date.” The Court of Appeal agreed with the Owen holding, and said nothing in Suastez “prohibit[s] an employer from imposing a waiting period or require[s] that an employer provide vacation pay vesting on day one of the employment.” (emphasis in original).

In rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the employers’ policy was unclear, the Court of Appeal found that the plain meaning of the employers’ vacation policy provided for a waiting period and did not constitute a forfeiture policy. The court highlighted the policy’s statement that employees “must complete one year of service with the company to be entitled to one week vacation,” and found that the example included in the policy made clear that an employee is not entitled to a pro rata amount of vacation pay during the first year.

Conclusion

The California Court of Appeal has now twice made clear that nothing in the California Labor Code prohibits a policy which provides for a waiting period before an employee begins to accrue paid vacation. Once an employee becomes eligible to earn vacation benefits, however, he or she is entitled to payment for unused vacation upon separation and cannot forfeit this entitlement. Thus, to ensure compliance with California Labor Code § 227.3, any policy providing for a waiting period before vacation accrual should be clear and should not purport to forfeit vacation time that has already accrued.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Employment Law Update for Nonprofits With Holly Sutton

Welcome to  EO Radio Show - Your Nonprofit Legal Resource . Charities, foundations, and their founders often request help addressing employment practices and compliance questions. In this episode, host Cynthia Rowland is joined by Holly...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law Firms® Rankings

Read More
Publication

Employment Law Symposium Recordings & Articles

Employers Face Significant New Requirements for Severance Agreements and Non-Competes  (Recording) Conducting Effective, Defensible Investigations (With Lessons Learned from Summary Judgment & Trial)  (Recording) California Employment Law Updates: What to Look Out for in...

Read More
News

Ripple Effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision on Affirmative Action

Kelly Matayoshi was quoted in the article "Ripple Effects of the Supreme Court’s 2023 Decision on Affirmative Action" in the Bar Association of San Francisco's fall issue of  San Francisco Attorney Magazine . Read...

Read More
Publication

Navigating California's New Rebuttable Presumption Law

The ever-evolving landscape of employment laws in California has introduced a notable change with the implementation of a new law that establishes a rebuttable presumption of retaliation in some circumstances. This law, which took...

Read More
Publication

Important Changes and the Impact of California Industry-Specific Minimum Wage Laws

In the ever-evolving landscape of California labor laws, the minimum wage has once again taken center stage. With the recent state-wide increase to $16 per hour, the Golden State continues to lead the nation...

Read More
Publication

Navigating Cannabis in the Workplace: A Guide for California Corporations

The landscape surrounding cannabis in the workplace is rapidly evolving, posing challenges for California corporations and businesses to establish effective policies and procedures. As the use of cannabis, both medical and recreational, becomes more...

Read More
Publication

Navigating California's Workplace Violence Prevention Law

California has introduced a new requirement compelling most employers to implement a workplace violence prevention policy by July 1, 2024. The implications of this law are significant, prompting the need for human resource executives...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Welcomes Benjamin Buchwalter to Growing Employment Group

Read More
Publication

Navigating California's Evolving Legal Landscape Governing Leaves of Absence

California’s employment laws are no stranger to change, and recent years have witnessed the introduction or modification of various protected leaves by employees. In this article, we will delve into three significant leave categories...

Read More