Opinion ID: 2588264
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Vesting of sick leave

Text: Pressler contends that his right to sick leave benefits was a contractual right protected by Article 1, Section 15 of Nevada's Constitution that became a vested interest once he was placed on sick leave. We disagree. Pressler relies on our decision in Nicholas v. Public Employees' Retirement Board [19] to support his contention. However, Pressler has not demonstrated that he has a contractual or a vested right to utilize sick leave once he is no longer an employee. Therefore, our holding in Nicholas, that once a public employee's pension benefits are vested, that right is constitutionally protected, [20] is inapplicable to this case. The City's sick leave policy specifically provided that upon termination, an employee would be paid only a portion of the accumulated sick leave up to a specified maximum. If Pressler was properly terminated, he was paid the amount due under the policy and has failed to support his contention that he is entitled to more. We conclude that the district court erred in concluding that Pressler was an at-will employee and as a result granting summary judgment with respect to all of his claims. We reverse the order of the district court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [21] MAUPIN, C.J., YOUNG, SHEARING, ROSE and BECKER, JJ., concur.