New England Legal Foundation
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission & History
    • Annual Reports
    • Board of Directors
    • State Advisory Councils >
      • Connecticut
      • Maine
      • Massachusetts
      • New Hampshire
      • Rhode Island
      • Vermont
    • Trustees
    • Members
    • Staff
    • Job & Internship Opportunities
  • News & Events
  • Docket
  • Briefs
  • Donate
  • Contact

EDS. v. Office of the Attorney General 

10/7/2009

 
Defending Employers’ Vacation Policies

In this case the Massachusetts Attorney General (“AG”) claimed that EDS violated the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act, G. L. c. 149, § 148 (“Act”) when it refused to pay a terminated employee for accrued but unused vacation time, despite the fact that EDS’s vacation policy expressly stated that a departing employee would not be entitled to payment for outstanding accrued vacation time.  While, by its terms, the Act does not require employers to provide paid vacations for their employees, it does require that a terminated employee shall be paid all wages due on the day of discharge, and it defines wages as “includ[ing] any holiday or vacation payments due an employee under an oral or written agreement . . . .”  (Emphasis added.)  The Act also provides that “[n]o person shall by a special contract with an employee or by any other means exempt himself from this section . . . .”  The AG argued that, once an employer chooses to provide for paid vacation time, this payment constitutes “wages” under the Act and the employer therefore must pay any departing employee for any earned but unused vacation time. According to the AG, EDS’s policy denying payment to a terminated employee for accrued but unused vacation time violated the Act and constituted a “special contract” by which the employer attempted to exempt itself from the payment of wages. 

The SJC took the case on direct appellate review and NELF, together with co-amici Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, filed an amicus brief in support of EDS. NELF argued that the AG’s argument was contradicted by the Act’s express language, which only requires a payment for unused vacation time when such payment is provided for “under an oral or written agreement.”  G. L. c. 149, § 148. Based on this language, NELF argued that where, as in this case, an employer’s vacation policy did not  provide for payment for unused vacation time, the Act was not violated and the former employee had no claim for unpaid wages under the Act.  NELF also expressed concern with both the economic impact of the AG’s interpretation on employers seeking to control the costs of their vacation policies and the possibility that the AG’s view might in fact cause employers to curtail or even eliminate paid vacations. 

Disagreeing with NELF, the SJC held that the Act entitles an involuntarily terminated employee to payment for earned but unused vacation time, notwithstanding an employer’s express policy to the contrary. The Court deferred to the AG’s statutory authority to interpret the Wage Act (here the AG's 1999 advisory interpreting "vacation payments"), while acknowledging that “[t]he Attorney General's interpretation is not the only meaning that could be attached to the [statutory] phrase ‘vacation payments due ... under an [employment] agreement.’” The Court expressly preserved for a future occasion the issue whether an employee who voluntarily quits his or her job would also be entitled to payment for unused vacation time irrespective of the employer’s vacation policy. 


Comments are closed.

    The Docket

    To obtain a copy of any of NELF's briefs, contact us at info@nelfonline.org.

    Categories

    All
    1st Circuit Court Of Appeals
    2nd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    3rd Circuit Court Of Appeals
    Business Litigation Session
    CT
    CT Superior Court
    CT Supreme Court
    Employer Employee Relationships
    February 2018
    February 2019
    Government Regulation/Administration Of Justice
    MA
    MA Appeals Court
    MA Division Of Administrative Law Appeals
    March 2015
    MA Superior Court
    MA Supreme Judicial Court
    MA US District Court
    ME
    ME Supreme Judicial Court
    NH
    NH Supreme Court
    Property Rights
    RI
    RI Supreme Court
    SCOTUS
    United States Supreme Court
    US Court Of Appeals Federal Circuit
    US District Court ME
    VT
    VT Supreme Court

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    June 2019
    April 2019
    October 2018
    June 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    October 2016
    June 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    June 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    June 2013
    February 2013
    October 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    October 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    October 2009
    February 2009
    October 2008
    June 2008
    February 2008
    October 2007
    June 2007
    October 2006
    June 2006
    February 2006
    October 2005
    June 2005
    February 2005
    October 2004
    June 2004
    February 2004
    October 2003
    May 2003
    February 2003
    September 2002
    May 2002
    February 2002
    May 2001