Latest Breaking News On - பைன் நதி நிலை வங்கி - Page 1 : comparemela.com
Historical encampment returns to Forbes Park in Pine River | Pine and Lakes Echo Journal
pineandlakes.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from pineandlakes.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Pine River Chamber invites businesses to financial assistance presentation
pineandlakes.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from pineandlakes.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
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.
On February 3, 2021, in
Hall v. City of Plainview, A19-0606, the Minnesota Supreme Court gave something to employees and employers alike when it addressed the issue of whether a handbook policy can create a unilateral contract (as to that provision), and what impact, if any, a general disclaimer has in negating the existence of a contract based on a specific policy. To reach its holding, the Court travelled back in time to revisit its seminal case,
Pine River State Bank vs. Mettille, and its progeny to outline the circumstances under which a handbook policy may rise to the level of a contract. In a nod to employees, and as a matter of first impression, the Court held that general disclaimer provisions in an employee handbook may not necessarily immunize employers from contractual liability based on specific policy language, particularly relating to compensation. In a nod to employers, the Court affirmed that Minn. Stat. §181.13(a) (for non-payment of wages) does not create an in
vimarsana © 2020. All Rights Reserved.