Is this legal in CA? Bonuses earned for the dec/jan/feb quarter are scheduled to be paid at the end of March. I resigned, my last day being 3/13 and the company says they won't pay. Opinions please..

Terms & Conditions Governing Commission and Bonus Plans

16) Termination of Employment:

A Participant must be an active employee on the applicable payout date in order to earn and be eligible to receive Payments. If a Participant is no longer employed by the Company for any reason whatsoever on the date a Payment is due, he or she will not be entitled to such payment.

I don't know off hand about CA, which frequently has laws that run contrary to those of the other states.

But in a great many states, such a provision is legal. It is also quite common.

I'm sure someone who knows about CA will be by.

If the bonuses were "earned" under the definition in the plan, they must be paid whether or not you are an employee at the time of payment or not. Note that this is specific to California and does not necessarily hold true in other states; each state would have to be looked at individually.
See Sections 4 and 35 here:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DLSEManual/dlse_enfcmanual.pdf

That provision is legal (and common) in California. Many companies require you be actively employed on the date bonuses are paid in order to receive them.

ejrhomer: Is this legal in CA? Bonuses earned for the dec/jan/feb quarter are scheduled to be paid at the end of March. I resigned, my last day being 3/13 and the company says they won't pay. Opinions please..

You are SOL. Read http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/a109826.pdf

You are SOL. Read http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/a109826.pdf

Will this sale bonus vs. signing bonus be the same ??

But in this case, the employer provision rule..!!

Droopy128: Will this sale bonus vs. signing bonus be the same ?? But in this case, the employer provision rule..!!

I do not have a clue what you are asking.

Case upheld concern signing bonus, and OP post consist of sales bonus.. wouldn’t this be different?

The bonus was based on work most closely described as piece work. I set up meetings for the sales team, at $x per meeting. At a certain level (which I met), I would also get a bonus based on company sales. I'm getting paid on neither.

Droopy128: Case upheld concern signing bonus, and OP post consist of sales bonus.. wouldn’t this be different?

You need to re-read the case. Neisendorf did receive a $250,000 signing bonus, but the Court was addressing Neisendorf's claim that she should be paid a bonus under Levi Strauss's, Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) and Leadership Share Plan.

In any event, you are missing the salient point of the case, which has really nothing to do with the type of bonus being offered, rather whether an employee must fulfill ALL of the terms of the plan itself (e.g., work for the entire year and be employed on the bonus payment date) in order to be eligible for payment. The Neisendorf court said yes.

Is this legal in CA? Bonuses earned for the dec/jan/feb quarter are scheduled to be paid at the end of March. I resigned, my last day being 3/13 and the company says they won't pay. Opinions please..

Terms & Conditions Governing Commission and Bonus Plans

16) Termination of Employment:

A Participant must be an active employee on the applicable payout date in order to earn and be eligible to receive Payments. If a Participant is no longer employed by the Company for any reason whatsoever on the date a Payment is due, he or she will not be entitled to such payment.

O.P the terms in your post clearly show you are not eligable.

You need to re-read the case. Neisendorf did receive a $250,000 signing bonus, but the Court was addressing Neisendorf's claim that she should be paid a bonus under Levi Strauss's, Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) and Leadership Share Plan.

In any event, you are missing the salient point of the case, which has really nothing to do with the type of bonus being offered, rather whether an employee must fulfill ALL of the terms of the plan itself (e.g., work for the entire year and be employed on the bonus payment date) in order to be eligible for payment. The Neisendorf court said yes.

The appeals court makes refernce to the Lucian decision,in the case that Barry posted,which is even more persices to the O.P's plight than Neisendorf:
A case illustrating these principles is Lucian, supra, 116 Cal.App.3d 972. In Lucian, the written employment plans at issue provided for a bonus that would be calculated and paid in full at the end of the calendar year, but specified that employees who voluntarily left the company before the bonus calculation date would not be entitled to the bonus. (Id. at pp. 974-975.) Three employees who departed voluntarily before the end of the year claimed entitlement to the bonus. As the Lucian court noted, “a specific bonus plan normally becomes binding as a unilateral contract when the employee begins performance, in the sense that the plan then cannot be revoked by the employer.” (Id. at p. 976.) Each plan at issue “had been consistently interpreted and applied to preclude the vesting of any benefits unless the participant completed the current calendar year in the service of his employer.” (Id. at p. 975.) The Lucian court concluded that summary
judgment was properly granted in the employer’s favor because “an employee who voluntarily leaves his employment before the bonus calculation date is not entitled to receive it.” (Ibid.)

Its an interesting case I'm glad Barry linked it,What is strange its Ca equivelent of a Title VII violation,which Neisendorf lost as well.
The justices make reference to this:
However, a case involving involuntary termination was analyzed in Hunter v. Sparling, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d 711, using the same contractual framework. “[T]he offer was to pay a bonus to those still in the employ on December 31, 1918. That offer could be accepted only by performing the act requested, namely, remaining in the employ until that date. The employee was fired before that date, so the act required was never performed. The
unilateral contract never came into existence.”
Here it looks like even if Neisendorf had won on the title VII violation she would not be able to collect on a bonus given a 1918 decision.That the Justices refernce.Hmm thats disturbing.
JoeC

Hey everyone, thanks for the input. I've pretty much given up on getting paid, but here was the basis of my argument. Granted, I know nothing in ths area.



California Labor code:
200. As used in this article: (a) "Wages" includes all amounts for
labor performed by employees of every description, whether the
amount is fixed or ascertained by the standard of time, task, piece,
commission basis, or other method of calculation.
202. (a) If an employee not having a written contract for a
definite period quits his or her employment, his or her wages shall
become due and payable not later than 72 hours thereafter, unless the
employee has given 72 hours previous notice of his or her intention
to quit, in which case the employee is entitled to his or her wages
at the time of quitting.

It seems to me that the company's T&C's about needing to be employed 30 days after the quarter end to collect wages on work done during said quarter is in violation here. If regular salary wages have to be paid within 72 hours of quitting and not held until a scheduled payday, and by definition my bonus and regular salary are both "wages" how can the bonus be excluded? Because the company says so??! I would think sections 200 & 202 would override that.

Just a rookie's opinion.

CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND INTERPRETATIONS MANUAL

35.2 Voluntary Termination Before Vesting Where Bonus Is Consideration For Continued Employment. An employee who voluntarily leaves his employment before the bonus calculation date is not entitled to receive it if the employer has expressly qualified its promise of a bonus on a requirement of continued employment. Lucien v. All States Trucking (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 972, 975. This has been the rule ever since Peterson v. California Shipbuilding Corp. (1947) 80 Cal.App.2d 827, 831, 183 P.2d 56. The California rule is in accord with the prevailing view that where a definite bonus or profit-sharing plan has been established and forms part of the employment contract, the employee is not entitled to share in the proceeds where he leaves the employment voluntarily prior to vesting. (See cases collected at 81 A.L.R.2d 1062, at p. 1082, et seq.; see also, O.L. 1993.01.19)