Paton

Paton v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Good Law
129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 784·197 Cal. App. 4th 1505·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1018·2011 D.A.R. 11
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 5, 2011No. H034618California6,028 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Premo, J.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Eric Patón, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, sued his former employer, defendant Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., alleging that defendant had failed to pay him for an eight-week sabbatical he had earned but not used by the time he resigned. Under defendant’s sabbatical policy, salaried employees with seven years of service were eligible for an eight-week fully paid sabbatical. The leave was forfeited if the employee did not use it before employment terminated.

*1511 Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s sabbatical program was really just extra vacation and under Labor Code section 227.3, 1 an employer may not require an employee to forfeit vested vacation pay. Citing Suastez v. Plastic Dress-Up Co. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 774 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 846 , 647 P.2d 122 ] (Suastez), plaintiff claimed that his right to the sabbatical had vested over the seven years he worked for defendant and, therefore, he was entitled to be paid for it when he resigned. Class members who had worked for less than seven years were entitled to be paid for the unused sabbatical in proportion to the time they had worked.

The trial court granted defendant’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.