Unlimited Paid Time Off Uncertainty: Is It Actually a Perk?
It is clear that unlimited PTO may have great benefits to the employees and culture—but a carelessly crafted policy will also expose employers to substantial risks.
June 18, 2019 at 02:25 PM
5 minute read
Many companies have created buzz over the last few years by offering employees “unlimited” paid time off (PTO). Traditionally, an employee's time off has been separated into vacation and sick days; in these scenarios, an employee may only take the number of vacation days allotted to that individual and, unlike paid sick leave, unused vacation at termination is paid out to the employee. Some companies provide PTO for “illness and wellness,” and a set number of PTO days are provided for use at the employee's discretion.
Unlimited PTO policies go one step further: there is no cap on the amount of time an employee can take off work. But with all the talk about more flexible PTO policies, only a small number of companies have committed to a true “unlimited” PTO policy.
However, the question remains: Are these unlimited PTO polices too uncertain to implement?
Potential Benefits
On its face, unlimited PTO seems like a win for both employees and employers. An unlimited PTO policy is a useful recruiting tool, as it promotes autonomy over the employee's own work/life balance. With more flexibility comes a greater responsibility for time management. Flexible policies around vacation can foster trust, avoid burnout and allow employees to focus on meeting objectives in a results-oriented environment rather than worrying about counting accrued vacation hours.
Along with the benefits of a potentially happier and healthier workforce, employers benefit from unlimited PTO policies as well. Unlimited PTO is seen as a cost-saving technique: If an employee does not accrue vacation, then there is no need to pay out unused vacation days at the end of the employment relationship.
California courts have provided limited insight into the legality of unlimited PTO policies. In California, an employer is not mandated to provide vacation pay; however, if an employer does have an established policy to provide paid vacation, then certain restrictions are placed on the employer as to how it fulfills this obligation. California allows vacation accrual, caps on the maximum amount of vacation accrual, and bans “use it or lose it” policies. Under California law, earned vacation time is considered wages, and vacation time is earned, or vests, as labor is performed. Because vacation pay is considered the same as all other forms of compensation at termination, accrued vacation pay must be paid to the employee upon termination.
Unlimited PTO policies that combine vacation and sick leave do not determine how much vacation is owed to an employee throughout the employee's tenure or, more importantly, upon separation from the company. Moreover, without the burden of determining how much time is allotted to each employee, there is less of a burden on Human Resources to keep track of accrued hours.
Potential Pitfalls
So, is unlimited PTO too good to be true? Problems identified may include, but are not limited to: inconsistent enforcement, employees actually taking less time off or working through vacation, and the creation of animosity among employees who are paying attention to which of their colleagues are taking time off and those who are not. For example, unequal administration and approval of PTO may lead to potential discrimination claims.
Employers must also remain cautious when combining sick days and vacation days into one unlimited PTO policy. California (and some municipalities like San Francisco) requires employers to provide a certain amount of paid sick leave. Mandatory sick leave presents several issues; for instance, what if an employee is denied leave that was meant to be requested as a sick day under the law? Denial of leave may expose an employer to potential retaliation claims.
Other considerations may include: Does the workforce require “facetime” around the office? How are teams affected or treated differently? Is there a policy to determine whether the employee is abusing the system? Will the employer compensate an employee for unused time? Will other paid sick leave be considered separately? How will the company avoid discriminatory application of the policy? Are the wage statements compliant with the current sick leave policy?
Conclusion
As vacation and time away from work is known to boost concentration, creativity and morale, it is important to determine what works best for the employer and its employees when it comes to vacation policies and paid time off. While there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the concept of unlimited PTO, it is clear that unlimited PTO may have great benefits to the employees and culture—but a carelessly crafted policy will also expose employers to substantial risks. Therefore, it is important to effectuate a clear written policy that considers the interplay of state and local leave laws, and mitigates the employer's risk while providing a benefit to the employee.
Alyssa Graf is an associate with Fisher Phillips in San Francisco. She may be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBuchalter Hires Longtime Sheppard Mullin Real Estate Partner as Practice Chair
Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Holland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
3 minute readPaul Hastings Hires Music Industry Practice Chair From Willkie in Los Angeles
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250