Skip to main content

An Employee Leaves the Company - Handling the Final Paycheck in Texas



Most employers will face a time when an employee leaves the company, whether it be voluntary or involuntary.  Each state handles how the former employee is to receive their final paycheck differently.  This particular note focuses on the law in Texas.
Voluntary

The Texas Payday Law requires that when an employee quits, retires, resigns, or otherwise leaves employment voluntarily, the final pay is due on the next regularly-scheduled payday following the effective date of resignation.  

As a result, if a company has paydays on the 1st and 15th of each month, if an employee quits on February 5, the employer can pay that employee the final pay check on the next regularly-scheduled payday, in this case, February 15.

 Involuntary 

However, in the case of involuntary termination such as a discharge, termination, layoff, "mutual agreement," and resignation in lieu of discharge, the employer has six calendar days from the effective date of discharge to give the employee the final paycheck.  If the sixth day falls on a day on which the employer is normally closed for business, the employer may wait until the next regular workday to give the employee the final check.   

Take the above example:  if the company terminates the employee on February 5, the employer must pay that employee its final pay check no later than February 11.  If February 11 fell on a Saturday or Sunday (when the employer was closed), the final pay check must be given to that employee the next business day, likely the Monday following the office being closed.
Employers need to be aware of this distinction or risk a potential suit by a former employee.  While these types of distinctions are easy enough to remember and should be in an employer's handbook or HR resource binder, these are the type of issues that can lead to easily avoidable litigation. 

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more