Skip to main content

Monetary Value of An Employee's Accrued Vacation Time Is Not Required To Be Included on Employee's Wage Statement (Until the Final Paycheck)


Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. - California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District - Division One


Facts:  Lidia Soto ("Soto") worked for Motel 6 for nearly two and a half years as a nonexempt employee.  Upon leaving her position with Motel 6, she brought a representative PAGA action against her former employer on the grounds that Motel 6 violated California Labor Code Section 226(a).  Soto claimed that Motel 6 violated Section 226(a) by failing to provide nonexempt employees with a wage statement that set forth "all vacation and PTO (paid time off) wages accrued during the applicable pay period."

Motel 6 demurred and claimed that Section 226(a) does not require that employers itemize the monetary value of vacation balances before the employment relationship is terminated.  Soto countered and argued that Section 226(a) requires itemization of earned "wages" and other California cases have recognized that vacation pay is a "wage".  The trial court ultimately sustained the demurrer and held that Section 226(a) does not require a wage statement to include the value of vacation or PTO wages accrued and earned.  Soto subsequently appealed.

Holding:  The Court of Appeal began its analysis with a nod to the fact that the legislative intent underlying Section 226 must be considered.  Section 226 requires "employers [to] provide accurate statements of wages to their employees."  Prior caselaw established that Section 226 "play[s] an important role in vindicating [the] fundamental public policy" which favors "full and prompt payment of an employee's earned wages..."  

While Soto had argued that Section 226 required the monetary amount of earned vacation pay to be listed on each itemized wage statement, the Court of Appeal pointed to a federal district court which had previously rejected that argument.  In that federal case, that court held that neither the statutory language nor the statutory purpose of Section 226 supported that argument.

In this case, the Court of Appeal pointed out that Section 226(a) contained nine separate categories that must be listed on a wage statement.  However, accrued paid vacation was not included.  As a result, the Court held that when a statute, such as Section 226(a), omits a particular category from an itemized list, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the legislative intent was to not include that category within the statute.

In regard to Soto's argument that the earned vacation time was actually a "wage", the Court disagreed and held that although vacation time vests as labor is provided by the employee, unused vacation time does not become a quantifiable vacation wage until the employee actually separates from the employment position.  The Court pointed to Section 227.3 of the California Labor Code which states that "upon termination", vested vacation must be paid to the employee "as wages". 

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that California Labor Code Section 226(a) does not require employers to include the monetary value of accrued vacation time in an employee's wage statement until a payment is due at the termination of the employment relationship.

The Takeaway:  This was one of the more interesting cases that I have come across in a while which deals with vacation time.  I think it is important to note that the Court of Appeal is not saying that employers do not have to itemize the monetary value of vacation time that an employee earns.  The Court makes it clear that this is required...but only upon the termination of the employment relationship.  During the course of the employment relationship, however, an employer is not required by law to itemize the monetary value of vacation time an employee earns, however.  That is not to say that an employer can voluntarily choose to do this.  The Court here simply confirmed that under the California Labor Code, this is not a requirement placed upon the employer.

As with many of these cases, I again caution readers that the law varies from state to state and circuit to circuit.  So even though this is the law in California (and might be the same elsewhere), make sure to double check the laws in your jurisdiction. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Haller

Date:  October 20, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/eld/SotoMotel6102016.pdf
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more