My company went through another round of layoffs and this time, I was affected along with two other employees. They informed us on 8/3/06 that Friday, 8/4 would be our last day. They told us they would issue a final check for our regular pay up to 8/4, vacation pay, and 2 weeks' severence. However, they didn't include the 2 weeks in lieu of notice pay -- which is definitely stated in the Employee Handbook.

In the first round of layoffs which took place on 5/26/06, the final pay they offered included regular pay + vacation pay + 1 week's severance. The company was sent an "anonymous" email reminding the company that it clearly stated in the Employee Handbook the 2 weeks in lieu of notice pay would be provided. The company spoke with their employment attorney who said that if it does state it in the Employee Handbook, the company is obligated to pay the in lieu of notice pay.

The company then took the following action for the people affected in the 5/26 layoff: they paid the 2 weeks' in lieu of notice pay and rescinded the 1-week's severence pay.

However, in my case, they gave me my final paycheck on 8/4 which clearly states on the check stub the different amounts for regular pay, vacation pay, and severence pay. This check has now been deposited. In this second round of layoffs, the three affected did not sign a severence agreement of any type. My question is: Is the company obligated to pay me, as well as the other two employees affected in this 2nd round of layoffs, the 2 weeks' in lieu of notice pay?

I've read that Severence Pay is not the same as In-Lieu-of-Notice Pay, which is given in place of the required notice of termination of employment. Under California Labor Laws, am I justified to go after this additional pay?

Thank you!

It may not be the same, but unless the employee handbook rises to the level of a bona fide contract, it would not be illegal to pay it once and not the next time.

Most employee handbooks aren't enforceable contracts and, if it's halfway well-written will specifically include a disclaimer saying that it isn't and that the employer reserves the right to change the company policies at any time.

I realize that severance pay is not mandated, however, in-lieu-of-notice pay is, especially when it spells it out in the employee handbook. Although the owner said he was giving us severance pay when he laid us off (and it clearly states "severance" in our final check), he's now saying it was misidentified as severance when in fact it was in-lieu-of-notice pay! One the of the people laid off brought this up to the owner via e-mail, 10 days after we were laid off and after our final checks were given to us.

It's obvious that the owner has changed his story, but can we still go after the 2 weeks' in-lieu-of-notice pay?

OK, reread what I said. The employee handbook is 99.9999999% NOT an enforceable contract. You can try anything you like. I wouldn't be optimistic, though. Whatever it was called, you got the two weeks.

I don't think the owner is changing his story, I think he just thought the two were interchangable. Personally, I would think so too.

Thanks for your replies.

I did contact my ex-employer and he responded (via their employment attorney) that he would go ahead and pay the additional two weeks. Granted, he didn't use the terminology "in-lieu-of-notice pay", but in the end, it didn't matter. My goal was just to have him stay true to his word (he was going to give us 2 weeks' severance) and stay true to the mandates of the company Employee Handbook (give 2 weeks' pay in lieu of the 2 weeks' notice).