Like many of you, I long for vacations.  I like to plan them out in advance and then spend the intervening weeks and months plotting and scheming.

What restaurants and new foods should we try? What attractions should we try to visit? And while that private tour my Facebook friend recommended sounds neat and all, what can we really afford to do?

Having just returned from a trip overseas, I can attest that vacations are good for the soul too.  They provide time with friends and family and a much needed perspective.  There is simply more to life than the constant barrage of news that seems to infiltrate our lives nowadays.

But where do vacations fit in the legal schemes employers set up in Connecticut?

Well, for one thing, vacations are not mandated by any state or federal law.  Employers are free to decide whether or not they want to give their employees any vacation days.  But many employers recognize that offering vacation days makes jobs more attractive and also leads to happier employees in the long run too.

That said, Connecticut law basically leaves it to the employers to set up policies — and then requires them to follow them.  The point this truly becomes an issue occurs when an employee leaves employment and still has vacation days that have accrued.

The key law here is Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-76k, which states:

If an employer policy or collective bargaining agreement provides for the payment of accrued fringe benefits upon termination, including but not limited to paid vacations, holidays, sick days and earned leave, and an employee is terminated without having received such accrued fringe benefits, such employee shall be compensated for such accrued fringe benefits exclusive of normal pension benefits in the form of wages in accordance with such agreement or policy but in no case less than the earned average rate for the accrual period pursuant to sections 31-71a to 31-71i, inclusive.

In plain English, the law dictates that employers follow their policies and practices.  Don’t want to pay your employees accrued vacation time upon termination? The law says that is ok, but only if your policies say that in advance.

As you craft your vacation policies, here are some other questions for an employer to consider:

  • Do your policies require employees to seek time off in advance?
  • Do you require employees to coordinate with other vacation schedules?
  • Do you have a “use it or lose it” policy on vacations, where employees are required to use vacation time by the end of the year, or do you allow for some carryover? If so, how much?
  • Do you have employees vacation time on a pro-rata basis? In other words, do employees get a day vacation for each month during the year worked?
  • Do your policies dictate that if the employee does take vacation time that has not accrued, what the penalties are?

Vacations are great. Encourage your employees to use them.  Just make sure your company’s policies are clear enough that you won’t be dealing with headaches later on.

Back in February, I noted that not all U.S. Supreme Court cases are created equal and warned employers not to get too excited about a case that was then being argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court — Lewis v. City of Chicago.

Yesterday, the Court released its unanimous decision (download here) in that case. It held that a disparate impact employment discrimination charge filed with the EEOC within 300 days of a discriminatory practice’s application – not merely the announcement of its adoption – will be deemed timely.

The court’s key quote is here:

Employers may face new disparate-impact suits for practices they have used regularly for years. Evidence essential to their business-necessity defenses might be unavailable (or in the case of witnesses’ memories, unreliable) by the time the later suits are brought. And affected employees and prospective employees may not even know they have claims if they are unaware the employer is still applying the disputed practice.

(As an aside, the decision was written by Justice Scalia — countering the prevailing wisdom that he always sides with big businesses.)

What does this mean for employers? It theory, it can mean that employers can now face disparate impact lawsuits significantly later than when a policy that first went unchallenged is implemented. 

But it’s hard to get too worked up about this case. Employers who have consistently reviewed the policies and practices will minimize their risks and the incident that gave rise to a claim here — employment testing — just isn’t that prevalent in the private workplace. 

For various recaps, view these posts here, here and here

In other news, the Court also clarified the rules on when attorneys fees may be issued in ERISA cases.