Could a former Ferriday employee collect five years of unused annual leave despite a ten-day carryover limit?

Plain-English summary

Ferriday's town attorney asked whether a former employee could be paid for five years of unused annual leave even though the town's ordinance and policy manual limited accumulated leave to ten days. The employee had resigned after five years and had been paid ten days.

The 1998 attorney general opinion said ten days was the maximum due on the stated facts, assuming the ordinance had not changed during her employment. It treated annual leave as part of the employment bargain and read the town rule as limiting how much could accumulate at the end of each year. The opinion also stated that leave already earned was a vested benefit that could not be retroactively reduced by changing its payment rules. It did not resolve a scenario in which the ordinance had changed during this employee's tenure.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Former municipal employees at the time

On the facts supplied, the employee's five years of service did not multiply the ten-day accumulation ceiling. The opinion assumed that the same ordinance applied throughout her employment.

Town officials at the time

The office said the town could clearly define and limit the annual-leave benefit by ordinance. It distinguished that authority from retroactively impairing leave already earned under existing rules.

Public payroll administrators at the time

The opinion treated the ordinance's annual accumulation limit and terminal-pay provisions as consistent. It concluded that no more than ten accumulated days were payable to this employee on the stated facts.

Common questions

Q: Did the employee earn ten payable days for each of five years?
A: No. The opinion read the town ordinance as capping the total accumulated balance at ten days, regardless of years served.

Q: What if the town changed its leave rule after time had already accrued?
A: The opinion said an earned benefit could not be retroactively impaired or reduced by a rule change. It assumed no such change occurred in this case.

Q: Did misunderstanding the town's leave policy change what was owed?
A: The office said the employee's failure to recall or understand the bargain did not alter the town's obligation under the ordinance and policy.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion described annual leave as a contractual employment benefit whose scope was set by applicable rules and, here, Ferriday's ordinance. It cited Section 13:6(b) of the town ordinance book as the ten-day accumulation limit and concluded that the employee's terminal payment matched that limit. Its answer was conditional on the ordinance remaining unchanged throughout her employment.

Citations and references

• Section 13:6(b), Ferriday Ordinance Book (ten-day annual-leave accumulation limit, as cited in the opinion)
• Knecht v. Board of Trustees and Jones v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge (cited in the opinion for earned-benefit and retroactivity principles)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/98-0349

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DEPARTMENT OF IUSTICE

~to~
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
P.O. Box 94005
ATrORNEY GENERAL 70804-9005 TEL: (504) 342-7013
FAX: (504) 342-7335
SEPTEMBER 1 6 t998

OPINION NUMBER 98-349

90-A POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS- Officers, Agents, & Employees Mr. John Sturgeon, Esq.
Pursuant to the policy of the Town of Ferriday, the maximum amount of Attorney, Town of Ferriday annual leave that can be accumulated by an employee is ten days,
P.O. Drawer 1539
regardless of the number of years of employment.
209 Texas Avenue
Ferriday, LA 71334

Dear Mr. Sturgeon:

You have asked for an opinion from this office regarding the rights of a previous city employee to accumulated annual leave in excess of the amount permitted to be carried over by town ordinance.

Specifically, Ms. Gardner resigned on July 2, 1998, after five years in the employ of the Town of Ferriday. She was paid ten days accumulated annual leave in compliance with the town ordinance and policy manual. She has apparently asserted the position that she is entitled to all of her accumulated annual leave for the five year period of employment.

Annual leave is a benefit provided by the employer and is part of the contract of employment between the employer and employee. See, Knecht v. Board of Trustees, 591 So.2d 690 (La. 1991). The nature of the benefit is disclosed, defined, and limited by rule and statute and in this case, by the town ordinance. Once the benefit is earned it becomes a vested right in the employee. The benefit cannot be retroactively impaired or reduced by changing the rules under which it can be paid. Jones v. City Parish of East Baton Rouge, 526 So.2d 462 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1988).

Assuming for the moment that the ordinance did not change during the period of Ms. Gardner’s employment so that there is no issue of retroactive application, it is clear that at the end of each year of employment the most she could accumulate as annual leave would have been ten days. Section 13:6(b), Ferriday Ordinance Book. This is regardless of the number of years of employment. At the end of the five years, the maximum accumulation is still ten days. This is consistent with the provisions for payment of terminal pay in the ordinance book and policy manual. It is a legitimate exercise of the powers of the town to limit the amount of accumulation of annual leave as long as it is clearly spelled out in the ordinance. That is the nature and extent of the benefit, as expressed by ordinance and policy. The failure of the employee to recall or

Page 2

i~lr. John Sturgeon, Esq.
OPINION NUMBER 98-349
Page ~2~

understand the bargain does not change the obligation of the town with regard to payment of accumulated leave.

In summary, the maximum amount of annual leave that is due and payable to Ms. Gardner under the facts as presented in your opinion request is ten days.

We hope this has been responsive to your request, however should you have any questions or comments, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By:
ROBERT B. BARBOR
Assistant Attorney General

RPI:RBB:glb