We are a C Corporation in the state of MD. Employee has been here for 4 years. He had 80 hours of vacation time on the books. We do not roll vacation, we are a "use it or lose it" employer concerning vacation. After your anniversary date your vacation will be reset on January 1 of the following year for ease of record keeping. The said employee signed an "Employee Handbook" and was given a copy, as per his signature recognizing such.

The employee came in and told the president on 3/31/2006 that he is giving his "2 week notice" of him terminating his own employment, however ot's also his last day(3/31/2006). LOL :eek: Yeh that's right, I am giving you notice of NO notice.

The Employee hand book says, "TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
Any employee terminated for cause will be automatically disqualified from receiving any payment for accrued vacation time. An employee terminated, after at least one year of employment, by layoff or leaving the Company voluntarily and giving a two week notice, will receive payment of earned vacation time for which they have not previously been compensated. Earned vacation time will be computed in increments of 1/12's starting from the employee’s anniversary date with the Company. "

His anniversary date is 3/4/2002. His "notice" was given 3/31/2006. I don't think he is even allowed to have the 1 month of accrued vacation. He is demanding all 80 hours. The only flaw I see in our handbook is it doesn't state "2 weeks MINIMUM". I am curious of you guy's/gal's opinion on this matter. Thanks a ton.

dew

That was not a 2-week notice, even if the employee chose to call it one. That was a 2-minute notice.

From the way I read your statement, you would be perfectly within the law to not pay him at all. Even if you did, you would not owe him the vacation he would have earned had he remained for the entire year. You would only owe what he accrued from his anniversary date through his last day worked (prorated).

Let him demand it. It's very likely, he'd lose. And even if he won, you're out very little anyway.

Let him demand it. It's very likely, he'd lose. And even if he won, you're out very little anyway.

Thnx for your insight Pattymd! On the business side of decisions, I will decide to not pay him because the costs don't out way the loss....IMO, mostly because I feel he is wrong. But on the personal side, I hate that about corporations...who have enough financial clout to make such a decison based on costs versus loss. It seems wrong, but I know it's not. In its simplest form this is just another person wanting something for nothing.

It's called the assumption of the risk. In this case, I feel it's justified.

If it were a pharmaceutical company who manufactured a potentially dangerous drug and they determined that their revenue would outweigh the claims they may have to pay out if they're sued, so they don't pull the drug from the market, THAT I don't feel is justified. OK, off soapbox now. :p

OK, off soapbox now. :p

;) Oh I could go on all day as I am sure you could as well. Thanks!!!

I have a similar situation in Maryland - We have an employee handbook, policy is to pay up to 80 hours of leave upon termination provided that employee gives 30 days notice and is not dismissed for work rule violations, also outlined in handbook. Employee gave 30 days notice but then proceeded to violate work rules by not following instructions from supervisor, despite 2 written warnings and meetings. He was dismissed. Employee is now claiming that he is due over 300 hours of leave.

We have told him he is not due this because he violated work rules and was dismissed. Do we have to pay him the leave??? BTW - leave is paid time off, can be used for vacation or sick. He also signed an acknowledgment of receiving employee handbook.

mcdougal, I answered in your separate thread.