Issue
In Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers’ Association v. County of Los Angeles, (2004 Daily Journal, D.A.R. 2017, Cal.App. 2 Dist., February 11, 2004), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, considered the issue of whether investigators for a district attorney’s office were entitled to a vacation pay cash-out while on work-related temporary disability leave.
Facts
William Kupper and Bennie Layne (Investigators) were injured on the job while working for the Los Angeles County District Attorney (D.A.). Both Investigators took temporary disability leave but retired before their disabilities became permanent. Under Los Angeles County ordinances, D.A. investigators may accumulate up to 320 current and deferred vacation hours. If an employee’s total vacation hours exceed 320 at the end of the year, the balance must be reduced by the excess amount and the employee is then compensated for the lost vacation hours. The vacation time cashed out is added to the employee’s salary figure used to calculate retirement benefit. County ordinances provide that the provisions limiting the vacation carryover time do not apply while an employee is on temporary leave for a work-related injury. County policy allows such an employee to keep accrued vacation time, but does not cash out excess time.
The Investigators brought a lawsuit against County alleging they were entitled to a vacation pay cash-out while on temporary disability leave. The Investigators reasoned that the County’s failure to pay the cash-out violated its obligation to fully compensate them under Labor Code section 4850. The Investigators also claimed that County violated their equal protection rights. The D.A. supplied evidence that, except in very exceptional circumstances, its policy is to have all employees take enough vacation time each year to make sure they do not go over the 320 hour limit. The trial court found in favor of County and the Investigators appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court did not err in finding in favor of the County. Labor Code sections 4850 subdivisions (a) and (b)(5) provide that when certain public safety officers, including D.A. investigators, suffer a work-related injury, they are entitled to a leave of absence for up to one year “without loss of salary.” These benefits are offered in place of the scheduled workers’ compensation benefits available to most other employees. After the one-year period, the employee is entitled to unpaid leave of absence and regular workers’ compensation benefits. The Court noted that the phrase “without loss of salary” as used in section 4850 has been construed to include sick time and other fringe benefits. The Court found that prior case law had interpreted the provisions of section 4850 as applying to rights to leave benefits that were guaranteed, but not to benefits that an employee “might reasonably have received” during the employee’s disability leave. The Court concluded that the Investigators’ entitlement to a vacation pay cash-out was not guaranteed and was merely speculative at best because of the D.A.’s policy to avoid cash pay-outs. The Court noted that, out of 265 investigators in the D.A.’s office, only 7 had received vacation pay-outs in a two-year period.
The Court also found that County did not violate Labor Code section 227.3, which prohibits employers from forfeiting an employee’s vested vacation rights and requires full cash compensation for unused vacation time. The Court concluded that the County’s policy was not “a use it or lose it” policy because it did not cause the forfeiture of vested vacation time, but merely set a limit on the amount of vacation time that an employee could accrue.
The Court also concluded that the Investigators failed to show that the County violated their equal protection rights and Labor Code section 132a by discriminating against disabled employees that are precluded from having excess leave cashed out while on disability. Vacation pay cash-outs at the D.A.’s office only occur in limited situations and the Court concluded that allowing the Investigators to take advantage of the cash-out provision would give them additional benefits to which the majority of other employees are not entitled.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.