There was insufficient evidence to show that sabbatical program by the employer did not, under the Labor Code, qualify as vacation.
On August 5, 2011, in
Paton v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., (California Courts of Appeal – 6th District, No. H034618) the employer
(Advanced Micro Devices Inc.) had an eight week sabbatical program available
to eligible employee who had worked over seven years. However, the policy
stated that if this time was not used prior to employment being terminated,
the leave was forfeited. Paton contended that under Labor Code Section
227.3 the time could not be forfeited as it was simply extra vacation
time. The employer contended it was not extra vacation time. The employer
filed for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court.
The court noted that under the Labor Code a sabbatical to be exempt the
following three things are required: it must be granted infrequently,
it must be longer than normal vacation, and granted in addition to normal
vacation. The court found that the evidence for the sabbatical program
was not conclusive to show it did not constitute a vacation but that it
had some of the same elements. Therefore a material question of fact remained
and summary judgment was improper.