Paton v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
197 Cal. App. 4th 1505
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Patón sues AMD, alleging eight-week sabbatical earned after seven years was not paid upon resignation.
- AMD offered an eight-week sabbatical to salaried employees after seven years; leave was forfeited if not used on termination.
- Plaintiff argues the program is actually regular vacation, making forfeiture prohibited by Labor Code § 227.3 and Suastez.
- Trial court granted summary adjudication for AMD, finding the sabbatical was a true sabbatical not subject to § 227.3.
- Court holds issue of whether the policy is sabbatical or vacation cannot be decided as a matter of law; merits unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AMD's sabbatical is true sabbatical or regular vacation | Patón asserts it is vacation; forfeiture prohibited by § 227.3 and Suastez. | AMD contends the policy is a legitimate sabbatical exempt from § 227.3 and Suastez. | Cannot decide as a matter of law; triable issue of fact remains. |
| Appropriate framework to distinguish sabbatical from vacation | DLSE four-point test governs; supports vacation characterization. | DLSE test not binding; policy aligns with § 227.3. | Court adopts four DLSE-inspired factors plus a fourth implicit factor to evaluate a sabbatical program. |
| Central factual question of purpose of the sabbatical | Leave is ordinary vacation; not designed to retain or advance employees. | Leave is intended as retention incentive and professional development beyond normal vacation. | Reasonable minds could find either purpose; not resolvable on summary adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co., 31 Cal.3d 774 (Cal. 1982) (vacation pay is deferred compensation; cannot be forfeited upon termination)
- Owen v. Macy's, Inc., 175 Cal.App.4th 462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (no prohibition on waiting periods for vacation; not directly on point here)
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996) (general principle governing summary judgment standards)
- Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077 (Cal. 2008) (context on policy interpretation and burdens in wage claims)
- Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 610 (Cal. 2009) (distinguishes incentive compensation from vested vacation)
- Neisendorf v. Levi Strauss & Co., 143 Cal.App.4th 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (incentive-based pay and vesting distinctions in employment)