Minnick
Minnick v. Auto. Creations, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Haller, J.
*1002 Nathan Minnick sued his former joint employers, Automobile Creations, Inc. and Dynamic Auto Images, Inc. (defendants), alleging their vacation policy violated state law because it required employees who worked for less than one year to forfeit vested vacation pay. Minnick brought the action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, and sought penalties under California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) ( Lab. Code, 1 § 2698 et seq. ).
The court sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend on Minnick's second amended complaint. We affirm. Defendants' vacation policy lawfully provided that employees do not begin to earn vacation time until after their first year. Because Minnick's employment ended during his first year, he did not have any vested or accrued vacation pay. Thus, he was not owed any vacation wages. (See Owen v. Macy's, Inc. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 462 , 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 70 ( Owen ).)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Defendants operate automobile-related businesses throughout California. At the relevant times, defendants' vacation policy provided that an employee's vacation benefit begins to accrue after the end…