Soto v. Motel 6 Operating LP

Labor Code 226 does not require an employer to list on an employee’s ordinary pay stubs the amount of vacation benefits earned but not paid during the pay period.  Agreeing with Heinzman v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2011) 2011 WL 12817699, this decision holds that Labor Code 226 does not require an employer to list on an employee’s ordinary pay stubs the amount of accrued vacation benefit earned during the pay period.  While vacation pay is earned incrementally, it is paid only when the employee takes vacation time or when the employment is terminated.  The pay stub only has to itemize wages paid, so it need not list the monetary value of accrued vacation benefits unless and until those benefits are paid on vacation or termination of employment.

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (Haller, J.); October 20, 2016; 2016 WL 6123927

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s