Ezel / Labor Guidance / CA
CA Opinion Letter 1986.12.13 December 13, 1986 Active
Back to California guidance

Traditional sabbatical leave generally falls outside Suastez, decided case-by-case

Summary: A company president asked DLSE how the Suastez decision and Interpretive Bulletin 86-3 apply to sabbatical leave. DLSE explained that sabbatical leave is generally not covered by Suastez, assuming it is substantially longer than a normal vacation, is not offered in lieu of vacation, and is granted only after substantial employment. DLSE said a traditional arrangement, such as four months off after seven years, generally would not require proration, but a sabbatical that is really vacation under another name would trigger Suastez, and each specific policy would be reviewed on its own facts.

Apply this to your situation

This page explains the general guidance. Ezel answers your specific situation, under current California labor law, with citations.

About this page: The full text below is the official document from California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT
525 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94107

      (415) 557-3827                                       ADDRESS REPLY TO:

                                                               P.O. BOX 603
                                                               San Francisco. CA 94101

                                    December 13, 1986      IN REPLY REFER TO:

Mr. Morris H. Bryson
President
Bryson Associates Inc.
Eight Beaconsfield Court
Orinda, CA 94563

Dear Mr. Bryson:

This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1986, regarding the application of the Suastez decision and our Division's Interpretive Bulletin 86-3 on the subject of sabbatical leave.

Sabbatical leaves as such are not considered to be covered by the Suastez decision assuming that the sabbatical leave is substantially longer than the normal vacation period and is not in lieu of vacation. Also, the sabbatical should be granted only after a substantial period of employment.

The point is that each case will have to be decided on its own facts. Generally speaking, we will not consider a traditional sabbatical arrangement (i.e., 4 months off after 7 years), to require proration. However, if a sabbatical arrangement appears to be vacation by another name then Suastez would apply.

I hope the foregoing answers your question. Your letter is the first I have received to date on this issue. If you have a specific policy you would like us to review I would be happy to do so.

Very truly yours,

Lloyd W. Aubry, Jr.
State Labor Commissioner

LWA/cs

1986.12.13

Get the answer for your situation

You just read California's guidance on this. Ezel checks current California labor law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.

Related guidance

Deducting partial-day absences of exempt employees from leave balances Opinion Letter · November 23, 2009 Whether undifferentiated PTO counts as sick leave for Kin Care and is subject to vacation vesting Opinion Letter · May 21, 2003 Waiting-time penalties and vacation payouts must include bonuses and commissions Opinion Letter · January 28, 2003 Changing a vacation plan's calculation method doesn't erase already-vested pay Opinion Letter · January 21, 2003