July 2, 2020

Volume X, Number 184

July 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Colorado Court of Appeals Approves “Use or Lose It” Policy Regarding Vacation Pay

In an unpublished opinion, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently held that a departing employee's right to vacation pay at separation is dependent on the company's policies.  Nieto v. Clark’s Market, Inc., 2019 COA 98.

In this case, the employer had a policy stating than an employee was not entitled to payment for unused vacation time if the employer discharged her or if she voluntarily quit without giving two weeks' notice. 

The employee quit without giving the requisite two weeks' notice and the employer did not pay her for unused vacation pay.  Thereafter, the employee filed suit. 

In its decision, the Court rejected the employee’s claim that her vacation pay was "earned and determinable," and, thus, owed to her on discharge pursuant to the Colorado Wage Claim Act (“CWCA”). Therefore, the employer did not owe her for that vacation time. 

The Court observed: 

Nothing in the CWCA creates a substantive right to payment for accrued but unused vacation time.  Rather, "the employee’s substantive right to compensation and the conditions that must be satisfied to earn such compensation remain matters of negotiation and bargaining and are determined by the parties’ employment agreement rather than by statute."

The Court concluded by writing: 

In sum, reading Sections 8-4-101(14)(a)(III), 109(a), and 121 together, we hold that the [employer’s] unused vacation policy doesn't violate the CWCA.  [The employee’s] right to compensation for approved but unused vacation pay depends on the party's employment agreement.  And that agreement unequivocally says that the vacation pay she seeks wasn't vested given the circumstances under which she left the [employer’s] employ."

The Nieto case is certainly good news for employers.  Even if not binding precedent, its rationale can be used to support a “use it or lose it” policy.  However, it may be prudent to still rely on a "cap on accrual" policy as a way of controlling an employer's liability to a separating employee for vacation pay.  Employers with questions regarding vacation payout policies and other employment policies would do well to consult with able counsel.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in CaliforniaNational Law Review, Volume IX, Number 220


About this Author

Donald Samuels Lawyer Polsinelli

Don Samuels offers more than 30 years of experience in the areas of Employment Law and Litigation. He is a passionate advocate and trusted advisor to his clients with a strong reputation for his in-depth knowledge of the law, high standards, practical approach, integrity and understanding of client needs. Don has a client base that spans from S&P 500 companies ...

Mary E. Kapsak, Polsinelli, Labor Policy Compliance Lawyer, Employment Litigation Attorney

Mary Kapsak works in Polsinelli’s Labor and Employment Litigation practice. 

Our attorneys have extensive experience providing employers with cost-efficient advice and aggressive defenses on employment and labor law matters. We have represented Fortune 500 corporations and privately owned entrepreneurial firms, and were ranked by Chambers USA in Labor & Employment, May 2016.