136 So. 3d 20
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Yolunda Davis resigned from St. Francisville Country Manor on August 23, 2010 and received a final paycheck; she later claimed approximately $1,008 in accrued but unused paid days off (PDO) remained unpaid.
- Davis sent written demand for the PDO pay; she sued on November 18, 2011 under the Louisiana Wage Payment Act seeking unpaid wages, 90 days penalty wages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
- Employer moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) PDO were a gratuity (not "vacation"/wages) and (2) its benefit schedule disallowed payout if an employee quit without proper notice.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the employer and dismissed Davis’s claim; Davis appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed whether (a) accrued PDO constituted "an amount then due under the terms of employment" (i.e., wages) under La. R.S. 23:631 and (b) the forfeiture clause was enforceable under La. R.S. 23:634.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that (1) the record did not establish as a matter of law that PDO were a mere gratuity and (2) the forfeiture clause was invalid as a matter of law if the PDO are wages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether accrued PDO are "wages" (an "amount then due") under La. R.S. 23:631(D) | Davis: PDO accrue by work and are earned; accrued unused PDO are wages due on resignation | St. Francisville: PDO are a gratuitous benefit (not "vacation") and thus not payable | Court: Genuine issue; PDO accrual language indicates they may be earned wages — employer failed to show absence of factual support for Davis’s claim; reversed summary judgment |
| Whether employer may enforce forfeiture clause (no payout if employee quits without proper notice) | Davis: Forfeiture clause cannot defeat payment of wages earned on resignation under La. R.S. 23:634 | St. Francisville: Policy lawfully conditions payout on proper notice | Court: Forfeiture clause invalid if PDO are wages; La. R.S. 23:634 prohibits requiring forfeiture of wages on resignation — employer failed to prove forfeiture as matter of law |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate (absence of genuine issues of material fact) | Davis: Material facts exist regarding whether PDO vested and whether wages are owed | St. Francisville: No material facts; policy shows PDO unearned or forfeitable | Court: Summary judgment improper because employer did not establish absence of factual support for essential elements of Davis’s claim; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Boudreaux v. Hamilton Med. Grp., Inc., 644 So.2d 619 (La. 1994) (accrued compensation during pay period is an "amount then due")
- Beard v. Summit Inst. for Pulmonary Med. & Rehab., 707 So.2d 1233 (La. 1998) (accrued vacation pay agreed as condition of employment constitutes wages and cannot be forfeited)
- Knecht v. Bd. of Trustees for State Colls. & Univs., 591 So.2d 690 (La. 1991) (employees acquire property interest/vested right in accumulated leave earned per employer policy)
- Macrellis v. Southwest La. Indep. Ctr., 657 So.2d 135 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1995) (earned annual leave is an amount then due under La. R.S. 23:631)
- Semien v. The Geo Group, 52 So.3d 1019 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2010) (PTO expressly "granted" for a year and not earned may be non-payable; distinguishes policies that clearly make time a gratuity)
- Barrilleaux v. Franklin Found. Hosp., 683 So.2d 348 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1996) (accrued vacation time falls within La. R.S. 23:631 protections)