Latest Breaking News On - General disclaimer - Page 3 : comparemela.com

Thursday, February 18, 2021 Minnesota employers will be heading back to the drawing board to revise their handbook disclaimers. The Minnesota Supreme Court now requires specific language in policies that set out the terms and conditions for payment of certain employee benefits such as payouts of vacation and paid time off (PTO). In  Hall v. City of Plainview (No. A19-0606, February 3, 2021), the court held that a general provision in a handbook stating that the handbook is not a contract of employment does not prevent an employee from seeking to enforce the terms of an employer’s PTO payout policy. Background Donald Hall was the manager of the City of Plainview’s municipal liquor store. Under the city’s PTO policy, he had accumulated nearly 1,800 hours of unused PTO, and the balance of his PTO was reflected in his payroll statements. In 2017, the city terminated Hall’s employment and later refused to pay any of his unused PTO.

United statesPine riverCity of plainviewDonald hallJustice paul thissenJustice thissenPine river state bankLower court dismissal of contractMinnesota supreme court rulingMinnesota courtSupreme court findsa unilateral contractMinnesota supreme courtGeneral disclaimerPersonnel policiesProcedures manualCourt dismissal