My partner was recently terminated from a job she worked for four years. The business changed hands 4 months ago, and the new company stated that they would give current employees a 90 day evaluation period during which they would be temporary employees and would be paid by a temp agency. The ninety day period passed and nothing was said, one person was terminated and paid for his accrued vacation. After 120 days had passed they told my partner she was no longer needed. They had agreed verbally at a meeting attended by all employees to honor vacation time accrued under the previous owner, since employee requests for vacation prior to the transfer and after the transfer had been turned down. Although I feel we may have a case for age discrimination our main concern is that they as of yet have not paid her for the two plus weeks of accrued vacation. Don't they have to pay you in full within 72 hours of termination?

When an employee is involuntarily terminated, the final paycheck has to be released no later than the end of the first business day after the termination.

However, Oregon state law does not require that unused vacation be paid out at all. While they may choose to do so, since it is voluntary and not required by law, they can take as much time as they like.

Aren't there laws state or federal against treating one employee one way and another differantly? The employee terminated at 90 days was paid his vacation pay at the time of discharge. Didn't they set a precedent by doing that? She requested to use some of it and was told that the company did not allow vacations to be taken in the summer, and did not allow employees to combine their normal days off with their vacation days, that is to get five vacation days and two days off in a row. She found out later that her supervisor's boss was on vacation.

thanks for your input.

No, paying ONE employee his vacation pay does not set a precedent requiring that all future terminating employees be paid it. There may have been special circumstances or he may have had a contract that specified it.

Nor does the law say that all employees have to be treated exactly alike, regardless. What the law says is that an employee cannot be treated differently BECAUSE OF their race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, pregnancy or because they are over 40. That is not the same thing as saying that all employees, without exception, have to be treated identically.

I think it's pathetic that working people are treated so poorly at present in the USA, looks like we're headed back to feudalism. Not all that much has changed.