California Court Discards Employee’s Wage Statement Claim

Statements don’t need to show monetary value of accrued vacation until payment due

By Bonita D. Moore and Daniel G. Prokott © Faegre Baker Daniels Oct 31, 2016

In a win for employers, the California Court of Appeal recently held that employers are not required to include the monetary amount of accrued vacation pay or paid time off (PTO) in its employees' wage statements until a payment is due.

In Soto v. Motel 6, Operating L.P., No. 37-2015-00017074, (Oct. 20), the plaintiff filed a representative lawsuit under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code § 2698 et seq., in her individual capacity and on behalf of all similarly aggrieved workers, alleging that her former employer, Motel 6, had violated Labor Code Section 226(a) by failing to provide its California nonexempt employees with wage statements setting forth all vacation and accrued PTO wages accrued during the applicable pay period.

The plaintiff contended that Section 226(a) requires the itemization of earned "wages" in wage statements and that other California cases — not addressing Section 226(a) — have recognized that vacation pay is a form of a "wage" which becomes vested during the pay period it accrues.

The plaintiff argued that because Motel 6 failed to identify accrued and unused vacation or PTO in nonexempt employees' regular wage statements it violated Section 226(a) and therefore sought statutory penalties and attorney's fees. 

The Court of Appeal agreed that an employee has vested rights to paid vacation or "vacation wages" during the time of his or her employment, but explained that under Labor Code Section 227.3 those rights do not ripen or become an entitlement to receive the monetary value of the benefit as wages until the termination of the employment relationship.

The court further explained that, because an employee is entitled to obtain the value of unused paid vacation at his or her "final rate," the amount of "vacation wages" to which an employee is entitled is not ascertainable until termination of employment.

The Court of Appeal noted that its interpretation was also consistent with the statutory purpose of Section 226(a), which is to document the specific wages being paid to the employee at the time of the payment so that the employee is adequately informed about his or her compensation and has a basis to challenge any shortfall.

Thus, the court held that "[i]f an employer is not required to compensate an employee for unused vacation in a particular paycheck, there is no statutory duty to identify the monetary amount of the accrued vacation balance."

The court further held that its conclusions applied equally to accrued and unused PTO for California employers who provide PTO rather than vacation leave.

An Additional Takeaway

Although accrued vacation or PTO is not required to be paid until termination of employment, and that is what the court focused on, one reasonable conclusion to draw from the court's analysis is that whenever an employer pays out accrued vacation or PTO, such as if the employer has a policy of paying out rather than carrying over accrued and unused vacation or PTO at the end of a year, the employer should itemize the payment(s) in the wage statement accompanying the payment(s) in order to avoid violating Section 226(a).  

Bonita D. Moore is an attorney with Faegre Baker Daniels in Los Angeles. Daniel G. Prokott is an attorney with Faegre Baker Daniels in Minneapolis. © Faegre Baker Daniels. All rights reserved. Reposted with permission.

MEMBER BENEFITS

CA Resources at Your Fingertips

View all Resources Now

Job Finder

Find an HR Job Near You

SPONSOR OFFERS

Find the Right Vendor for Your HR Needs

SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies

Search & Connect