Utah PTO Payout and Precedence

[TodPunk]

What is the name of your state? Utah

I have just quit my job after 3 years. 2 years ago, a friend of mine quit and got paid in full for his PTO hours accumulated. The company policy is half in the Employee Handbook, and has been unchanged for (what I'm told) 5 years. Despite company policy, he was paid out in full. I was paid out in half in accordance with policy.

I have already contacted them on this, but in case it gets ugly, does anyone know if the preferential treatment of one employee in this manner would be actionable? Anyone know where I might research such a thing? (Sadly, I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, so law research is a mystery, but I'm happy to read up if pointed in the right direction.)

 

[cbg]

I'm not where I can check my source material at the moment, but if memory serves, Utah does not require that they pay out any unused vacation in the first place. If you got half, you got more than the law requires.

The fact that they paid one person in full five years ago does not create a binding precedent that requires them to pay you in full now.

 

[Betty]

Utah re payment of earned vacation and/or sick days upon separation: Payment is required only if required by a contract between employer & employee. Private employers must pay all "unpaid wages" with 24 hrs. for involuntary separation & on the next regular payday for resignations.

 

[TodPunk]

I'm well aware they're not required to do so simply by the law. I'm more wondering if their doing so for one employee and not another would constitute discrimination or some other unfair treatment. I realize law is more complicated, but the way I see it, you give it to one employee, you can't deny it to anyone else without reason. I could obviously be wrong, but I'm looking for a reason why one person can get special treatment.

(cbg, it was two years, not five. It was during the period of my employment, and to someone in my same department, hired after I was).

 

[cbg]

All right, two years then. It does not change the answer.

Unless you have a valid and supportable reason to believe that the other employee was paid out in full and you were not, BECAUSE OF your race, religion, national origin or other characteristic protected by law, it is not illegal discrimination. One person can get special treatment because no law says they can't. There is no law that says if you do for one, you are therefore and forever after required to do for all.