A former Target Corporation employee claims the retailer violated California labor law by failing to pay out unused vacation days at the correct rate upon her separation from the company.
In particular, the case claims Target failed to pay employees for unused vacation time at their “final rate,” which includes shift differential pay, and instead used only their base hourly rate to determine compensation for any unused vacation days at the time of their separation.
The plaintiff says she was employed by Target between 2016 and May 2020 and accrued vacation and/or paid time off hours at all times relevant to the complaint. Leading up to her termination, the plaintiff was paid a base hourly rate plus additional hourly wages in the form of shift differential pay, the suit says. Although Target was required under the California Labor Code to pay the plaintiff for her unused vacation days at her “final rate” upon her termination, the defendant failed to include the woman’s shift differential pay in its calculations, according to the case.
“However, despite that Plaintiff’s ‘final rate’ at the time of her termination was comprised of her base hourly rate plus the shift differential, Defendants paid Plaintiffs accrued and unused vacation at only the base hourly rate,” the lawsuit says.
Moreover, the suit argues that because Target failed to pay for the plaintiff’s unused vacation at the proper rate, the retailer additionally overstepped the California Labor Code’s requirement that employees be paid all wages due and owing at the time of their separation.
The plaintiff looks to represent all former non-exempt employees who worked for Target in California during the relevant time period (beginning four years before the lawsuit was filed and until the time the class is certified) and received shift differential pay, had vested vacation owed upon separation from employment, and were paid for such unused vacation at a rate that did not include shift differential pay.
Originally filed in California’s superior court, the lawsuit has been removed to the state’s Central District Court.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.