Opinion ID: 4522112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: Parties The Bar at the Yard, LLC, doing business as Longwells Restaurant, is a restaurant and bar in Lincoln, Nebraska. Eric Marsh is the owner of Longwells Restaurant. We will refer to The Bar at the Yard, LLC; Longwells Restaurant; and Marsh collectively as “Longwells.” Kevin Drought worked as the general manager of Longwells from October 2013 to October 22, 2015. He was paid a yearly salary of $80,000. Kyle Fessler worked as Longwells’ head chef from October 2013 to December 8, 2015. His annual salary was $49,999.99. Employment Agreement Drought and Fessler were required to sign a “Longwells Employee Agreement” in order to obtain employment. Under “Work Hours,” the agreement stated in part that “you will be expected to work a minimum of 40 hours per week other than paid time off which is addressed below.” The “Termination” provision of the agreement stated that “if, at any point, 60 days 1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1228 et seq. (Reissue 2010, Cum. Supp. 2018 & Supp. 2019). - 862 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports DROUGHT v. MARSH Cite as 304 Neb. 860 pass with you billing no hours to a client, this agreement will be considered terminated.” The “Compensation” section of the agreement included the following provisions: 1. You will be paid weekly 2. Your earnings will be based on your billable hours 3. You will be paid < > . . . for every hour billed to and approved by the client 4. Billable hours are determined based on the Company’s understanding with its clients 5. You will be required to provide the Engagement Manager with a timesheet signed off by the client designee in order to be paid 6. The Company will provide the timesheet template to you separately 7. If you do not produce an approved time sheet then you will not be considered to have earned billable hours 8. Approved timesheets are to be submitted per the “Time and Expense Reimbursement Policy and Procedure” which will be provided to you separately The PTO section specified that PTO included vacation, sick days, and holidays. A table showed that when the “Employment Anniversary” is “[l]ess than 2 years,” an employee would earn 4 hours of PTO “per 40 hour + week billed.” Once the employment anniversary reached 2 years, the amount of PTO earned increased to 5 hours. Lawsuit After separating from employment, Drought and Fessler requested compensation for PTO that they claimed had been earned but not paid. Longwells refused the requests. Drought and Fessler then sued Longwells, alleging a violation of the Wage Act. They asserted that the employment agreement governed PTO to be paid. The complaint alleged that Longwells owed PTO of $16,430.86 to Drought and $10,027.61 to Fessler. - 863 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports DROUGHT v. MARSH Cite as 304 Neb. 860 As an affirmative defense, Longwells asserted mutual mistake. But Longwells also asserted that if the court found that the employment agreement should not be rescinded or reformed based upon mutual mistake, Drought and Fessler’s claims were barred by the terms of the agreement. Specifically, Longwells contended that no PTO accrued under the agreement, because Drought and Fessler did not have billable hours and did not bill hours to a client. Summary Judgment The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The evidence was undisputed that as salaried employees, Drought and Fessler were not required to keep track of their hours worked. It was also undisputed that Drought and Fessler did not have clients or billable hours. Drought and Fessler claimed to have “easily worked at least 40 hours per week,” but Marsh stated that Drought worked less than 30 hours in a week on multiple occasions. Drought testified in a deposition that he was paid a salary every week regardless of the number of hours he worked. Drought took 1 week of vacation in 2014, and Longwells paid him for that vacation time. Fessler took 1 week of vacation in 2014 and in 2015, and he similarly stated that Longwells paid him for that vacation time. Marsh testified that Drought and Fessler took time off, but that there was never a PTO offer or policy. Marsh testified that he “never docked anyone’s salary when they were off for sick time or vacation time.” According to Marsh, PTO was not discussed at the time of hiring, was not a term of employment, and neither he nor Drought or Fessler knew the PTO clause was in the agreement when it was signed. Marsh stated that he asked Drought and Fessler to sign the employment agreement for the sole purpose of the noncompete provision. The employment agreement was based off a document used by an information technology company that employed independent contractors who serviced clients of the - 864 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports DROUGHT v. MARSH Cite as 304 Neb. 860 information technology company. According to Marsh, the agreement contained a number of provisions that were never intended to apply to employees of Longwells. The court found that there was no dispute payment for accrued PTO is compensation for labor or services and that Drought and Fessler each signed the employment agreement containing a provision for PTO. The court framed the dispute as whether Drought and Fessler satisfied the terms of the employment agreement in order to be entitled to PTO. The court found that Drought and Fessler could not have earned any PTO because they did not have timesheets signed by clients nor did they have billable hours. The court determined that hours worked did not equate to hours billed and that there was no agreement to provide PTO based on hours “worked.” The court reasoned that because Drought and Fessler did not bill any hours to clients, they could not have earned any PTO under the plain language of the employment agreement. Thus, the court sustained Longwells’ motion for summary judgment, overruled Drought and Fessler’s motion, and dismissed the complaint. Drought and Fessler filed a timely appeal. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Drought and Fessler assign that the court erred in (1) failing to find that they were entitled to their earned but unused PTO; (2) failing to find that there were terms in the employment agreement that were inapplicable to their employment situation, in finding that they did not earn PTO because they could not prove billable hours, and in failing to address that there could be no mutual mistake in a unilateral employment agreement; (3) failing to find that the parties’ understanding and agreement of how PTO was earned was demonstrated by the fact that both Drought and Fessler had been paid for PTO before their terminations; and (4) sustaining Longwells’ motion for summary judgment and overruling Drought and Fessler’s motion for summary judgment. - 865 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports DROUGHT v. MARSH Cite as 304 Neb. 860