Court Opinion

ID: 9656146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:39:39.979631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:30:38.907246
License: Public Domain

McCLENDON, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons.
|J respectfully disagree to the extent the majority concludes that the plaintiff was entitled to three weeks of vacation pay. Although testimony was presented *228at the hearing to show that another pharmacist was paid the remainder of his vacation pay following his termination, that pharmacist had worked the majority of the year, whereas the instant plaintiffs employment terminated in January. Additionally, the mere fact that plaintiff had previously been told that he would receive three weeks of vacation in 2008 does not indicate that the entirety of the vacation vested on January 1, 2008. Based on the facts presented herein, I find the reasoning of my colleagues in Chapman v. Ebeling, 47,710 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/18/06), 945 So.2d 222, instructive. Thus, I would find that a payment of an accrued portion, based on the pro-rata amount of time employed during 2008, is the appropriate method of calculating plaintiffs vacation time.