Paton v. Advanced Micro Devices 8/5/11 CA6

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: H034618

Case Date: 08/05/2011

Plaintiff: Paton

Defendant: Advanced Micro Devices 8/5/11 CA6

Preview:Filed 8/5/11

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ERIC PATON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION

H034618 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-07-CV084838)

Plaintiff Eric Paton, 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 defendants 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. Plaintiff claimed that defendants 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 (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.
1

Further unspecified section references are to the Labor Code.

The trial court granted defendants motion for summary adjudication (Code Civ. Proc.,

Download H034618.PDF