An employee who finishes correctly. is entitled to payment of public holiday pay earned but not used. Unless otherwise required by state law, if you do not make an acceptable termination, you may not be paid for earned but unused [paid leave]. In addition, if your employment relationship is terminated for misconduct, you will not be entitled to compensation in lieu of termination or payment of earned but unused [vacation pay], unless required by law. On the issue of Hall`s accumulated and unpaid PTO, the tribunal concluded that “an accumulated PTO constitutes a form of remuneration and is therefore fundamental to the employment relationship.” The court found that the City`s policy regarding the payment of the accumulated PTO remained in effect until Hall`s termination date. Thus, the court was not obliged to decide whether the city had the right to amend the terms of the manual prospectively. On November 15, 2007, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, Inc. (Case No. A05-1887, 2007 WL 3378653), which clarifies in favour of employers whether an employer is required in all cases to pay all accrued leave and paid leave (PTO) to dismissed employees. The Court held that this issue is purely contractual between the employer and the employee, so an employer does not have to pay for unused leave and PTO in accordance with its internal written instructions. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that while vacation and PTO are “wages” under Section 118.13(a), the law itself does not grant any right to vacation, PTO, or PTO payment. On the contrary, the employee`s rights to these “wages” are entirely governed by contract.

Essentially, the court clarified that paragraph 181.13(a) is a temporal statute. The contract determines the “wages” an employer must pay to a laid-off employee, while the law dictates when an employer must pay those wages. Employers can therefore impose conditions on employees` right to take the leave they deserve or to receive payment for unused leave. In this case, “Lee acquired her right to use paid leave while she was employed, but she is not entitled to payment in lieu of paid leave because she was unable to meet the condition of the appropriate termination employment contract after her dismissal for misconduct. Fresenius has not violated the provisions of its employment contract and is therefore not liable in this case. The court`s decision shows that Minnesota employers can no longer rely on a blanket waiver of the will or contractual nature of the employment relationship set out at the beginning or end of a manual to govern provisions regarding wages or benefits or other terms and conditions of employment. The problem of the disclaimer can be solved by indicating: when and how often wages will be paid; how benefits such as leave, sick leave, PTO or other leisure activities are accumulated and at what rate these benefits are paid when they are used; and whether unused benefits are paid at the end of the employment relationship and, if so, what conditions might lead the employer to refuse to pay these unused benefits. Where employers grant vacation pay, the paid leave or paid leave constitutes “wages” for the purposes of paying wages (Minn. Stat. Ann.

§ 181.13). Minnesota law states that if fired by their employer, an employee is entitled to wages that have been “actually earned.” To the extent that it had not declared this conclusively in previous cases, the court declared that holiday pay counts as a salary. As a result, the employee argued that he was legally entitled to earned, albeit unused, vacation pay. 1 Although Fresenius` manual refers to “PTO” or paid leave, Fresenius used the terms PTO and vacation interchangeably, and the Supreme Court did the same. The Minnesota Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision on November 15, 2007, concluding that vacation benefits are “entirely contractual.” Based on the terms of an employee handbook or policy, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that employers can legally refuse to pay personal leave (PTO) to an employee who has been terminated for misconduct. The decision overturns a 2006 Court of Appeal opinion and has important implications for employers offering vacation or PTO benefits. The court also expressed concern about a contrary attitude.