Skip to main content

Forfeiture of Accrued But Unused Vacation Time Lawful When Employee Terminated


Nieto v. Clark's Market, Inc. - Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division IV


Facts:  Carmen Nieto ("Nieto") worked at Clark's Market, Inc. ("Clark's") and accrued vacation time pursuant to clark's policy in the employee handbook.  The policy stipulated how vacation time was to be accrued, how it could be used, and ether and under what circumstances employees would be entitled to payment for any unused vacation time when they left Clark's.  The policy stated that an employee was entitled to payment for accrued but unused vacation time if he/she voluntarily resigned and gave at least two weeks' notice.  However, if Clark's terminated the employee for any reason, no reason, or if the employee failed to give at least two weeks' notice before quitting, the employee would forfeit all earned vacation pay benefits.

When Nieto was terminated, it refused to pay her for the vacation time she had accrued but not used.  Nieto filed suit against Clark's on the grounds that the policy violated the Colorado Wage Claim Act because it denied her payment for earned wages. Clark's moved to dismiss the claim which the district court granted.  Nieto subsequently appealed.

Holding:  The Colorado Wage Claim Act states that when an employer terminates an employee, "the wages or compensation for labor or service earned, vested, determinable, and unpaid at the time of such discharge is due and payable immediately."  Vacation pay is included in the definition of wages in the Colorado Wage Claim Act.  However, a provision of the Colorado Wage Claim Act stipulates that if an employer provides paid vacation for an employee, the employer shall pay upon separation all vacation pay earned and determinable in accordance with the terms of any agreement between the parties.

In this case, the Court recognized that nothing in the Colorado Wage Claim Act creates a substantive right to payment for accrued but unused vacation time.  Therefore, the matter of whether particular compensation is "earned, vested, [and] determinable," and therefore due upon termination depends upon the terms of the parties' agreement (ie the employee handbook.)  As the facts established, the handbook conditioned payment for accrued but unused vacation time.  Nieto had failed to allege she met the conditions (as she was terminated and therefore not due the unused vacation time.)

Judgment:  The Court of Appeals affirmed the employer's motion to dismiss, on the grounds that the terminated employee failed to establish her employer's policy of not paying unused but accrued vacation time violated the Colorado Wage Claim Act, as the terms of the employee handbook dictated how the unused vacation time would be handled at the time of separation.

The Takeaway:  Note, in this case, the Court held that nothing in the Colorado Wage Claim Act created a substantive right to payment for accrued but unused vacation time.  Rather, the agreement between the parties controls how the unused vacation time is to be paid (or not paid) upon the end of the employment arrangement.  In this instance, the employee handbook spelled out what would happen to any accrued but unused vacation time.  Unfortunately for Nieto, she got caught holding the short end of the stick here and simply could not establish any violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act by Clark's, based upon the wording of the employee handbook.

With that being said, it is always a good idea to consult the local laws in your state to determine how this (and other related matters) are handled.  Just because Colorado allows for the forfeiture of accrued but unused vacation time in this particular case does not mean other states would find such acts lawful as well.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Jones

Date:  June 27, 2019

Opinion:  https://www.leagle.com/decision/incoco20190627070

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