Mandatory Paid Vacation Coming to the U.S.?

Background and Introduction

Employees in Europe and much of the rest of the world have enjoyed generous vacation time mandated by law for many years. In fact, 147 nations mandate vacation of some sort. The United States is the only industrialized nation in the world without a minimum annual leave law. Even China mandates three weeks off. Canada mandates two weeks for all employees and three weeks for those with five years or more with the employer.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American today annually works a full month (160 hours) more than in 1976. Job-related stress costs American business $344 billion a year in absenteeism, lost productivity and health costs. Indeed, some 75% of visits to primary care physicians come from stress-induced problems.

Not surprisingly, the Pew Research Center reports that more free time is a number one priority for middle class Americans with 68% listing it as a high priority.

In 2008, only 52% of American workers took a vacation of a week or longer, and only 14% took two weeks or more of vacation time.

Men who do not take regular vacations are 32% more likely to die of heart attacks and 21% more likely to die early of all causes, while women who do not take regular vacations have a 50% greater risk of heart attack and they are twice as likely to be depressed as those who take regular vacations.

The foregoing is excerpted from the data contained in the proposed Paid Vacation Act of 2008 recently introduced into the House of Representatives by Rep. Grayson of Florida. I might add that there is data suggesting that European workers are more productive per hour worked (Americans are more productive per person because we work many more hours). I have long hypothesized that there might be a connection between more time off and higher productivity, not to mention better health.

Paid Vacation Act of 2009

The Paid Vacation Act of 2009 (HR 2564) would mandate one workweek of paid vacation during each 12 month period for employers with 100 or more employees beginning on the date of enactment. The provision would be added to the Fair Labor Standards Act as an amendment.

Beginning three years after the date of enactment, employees of employers with 50 or more employees would be entiteld to one workweek of paid vacation during each 12-month period. Employees of employers with 100 or more employees would be entitled to two weeks.

Employees would be obligated to give 30 days’ notice prior to taking vacation. Employees would be eligible if they had worked for at least 12 months for the employer and worked at least 1250 hours.

The time could not be accrued and rolled over.

The Significance of the Proposed Act

Although I do not have data in hand yet as to the number of employees in the United States whose employers provide paid vacation, my recent study of paid time off and sick leave in general suggests that a substantial majority of employers do provide such paid time off. Persons least likely to have paid vacation are those at the bottom of the wage and socio-economic scale.

Although this bill would increase cost for some employers, in theory it might reduce health care and other costs. Of course, whether the United States is willing to join its other industrialized colleagues in mandating time off remains to be seen. One way or another, though, 2009 is shaping up to be a very interesting year in the world of labor and employment law.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

The first bill signed into law by President Obama was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which overruled a controversial 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., issued in 2007. The Act amends both the Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and modifies the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Act provides that in cases involving discrimination in compensation, under Title VII or the ADEA, an unlawful employment practice (which would trigger the running of the statute of limitations) occurs (1) when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted; (2) when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice; or (3) when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, “including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.” (emphasis added)

The Act further provides that in addition to the damages recoverable under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, Title VII claimants may recover back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, “where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful employment practices with regard to discrimination in compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a charge.”

The provisions of the new statute are also extended to compensation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Employers must now be aware that discriminatory compensation decisions made in the past which have a continuing effect on one or more employees today could now give rise to a sustainable claim of discrimination.

My advice to employers is to do a compensation audit in cooperation with employment counsel to determine whether there is any pay disparity in the work force. Even if the disparity is the result of a decision years ago, you could be subject to litigation today, including class action litigation. By taking steps now to remedy unlawful disparities,

Published in: on May 8, 2009 at 10:13 pm  Leave a Comment