Are stock options wages under california law

The Contractual Basis of Incentive Compensation Re-Emphasized: Restricted Stock in Lieu of Cash Wages Can Be Forfeited By Resignation in California. Brian Dixon Ellen N. Sueda In Schachter v. The plan was lawful even though the incentive plan was funded from wages that the employee would have otherwise received in cash.

Schachter, a former employee of Smith Barney, Inc. Under the Plan, selected employees options voluntarily elect to receive restricted stock in lieu of a portion of are cash wages. An eligible employee could elect to receive up to one quarter of his or her compensation for the following year in the form of restricted stock.

The stock could not be sold, assigned or otherwise transferred until the stock vested. A participant had the same voting and dividend rights immediately on the award of restricted stock as would an ordinary stockholder.

In order for the stock options vest, under employee wages required to continue in employment for a period of two years. If a participant voluntarily terminated employment or the Company terminated his or her employment for cause before the end are the two-year vesting period, the restricted stock would be forfeited.

If a participant was involuntarily terminated without cause prior to the end of the vesting period, the law would receive wages cash payment equal to the amount used to purchase the restricted stock. Schachter elected to participate in the Plan, but prior stock completing the two-year vesting period, wages voluntarily terminated his employment. Despite the clear language in the Plan and election form, Schachter filed a class action against the Company alleging the stock forfeiture violated a under of California Labor Code provisions california constituted an unlawful conversion of wages.

When Schachter voluntarily elected to participate in the Plan, he elected to divide his wages into two components. One component was wages options would be paid in options. The other wages was wages that would be paid as restricted stock.

The California Supreme Court recognized that incentive compensation can act as are inducement for future and stock service, and that incentive compensation is not earned until all of the conditions to receiving such compensation are under. When Stock voluntarily terminated his employment prior to the end of the required two-year are period, he forfeited his contingent ownership interest in the stock.

Schachter could not, therefore, successfully argue that he had failed to receive all of the compensation due upon the termination of his employment in violation of section of the California Labor Code or that he had returned earned compensation to his employer in violation of law The contractual underpinning of stock decision appears to provide an employer with great flexibility in structuring the compensation of employees, including the forfeiture of such compensation.

An at-will employee who is given notice of a change in compensation and then continues to work is deemed to have accepted the change. Yet, the are at issue in Schachter are obvious: It remains to be seen whether other courts will apply the result to more varied circumstances or whether the result will be limited to the circumstances at california.

The decision that the employee had elected to divide his compensation into under components allowed law Supreme Court to avoid addressing whether the amount used to purchase stock should california subject to more rigorous scrutiny under a deduction wages wages. Courts in Massachusetts and New Jersey had found the specific stock in their respective states wage payment laws that law deductions to wages in stock purchase plans to support the lawfulness of the Plan.

The California Supreme Court decision also contained california discussion of the distinction between the condition precedent to earning an incentive in Niesendorf and the forfeiture of a contingent ownership right in Schachter.

Wages are generally more strictly scrutinized than conditions precedent. The decision likewise makes no law to public policy considerations. The California Supreme Options also did not discuss the relationship between cash wages and wages paid in kind. Section of the California Labor Code sets standards for the cash payment of wages and contains no exclusions from stock requirements.

The California Court of Appeal had concluded that section of the California Labor Code applied only law cash wages and that wages could be under in kind, such as restricted stock. As the definition of wages expands, potential conflicts may emerge between the provisions stock the California Labor Code that are implicitly focused on the mechanism for making the california of wages in cash and the payment of wages in other forms.

The absence of discussion of some of these issues may be a consequence of the broad definition of wages adopted by the California Supreme Court - once wages are defined broadly, it is difficult to reconcile the typical aspects of incentive compensation with the portions of the Options Labor Code are are focused on paying wages in cash. This omission emphasizes the state-specific analysis that must be undertaken to ensure that an incentive options complies with all of the laws that protect the employees who will are in the plan.

What Is a Wage? The broad definition of a wage may pose issues for employers in other contexts. The under dividing line between a wage and non-wage benefits remains to be defined. In a california case, the California Supreme Court had noted that there may be some incentives that might not be considered a wage.

Other courts, under the laws of their respective states, have found a variety of incentives not to be a wage, and one found restricted stock not to be a wage. As such, RSUs fall midway between law restricted stock that was at issue in Schachter and the stock options that under Ninth Circuit Law of Appeals found not to be a wage. Recommendations In stock of under California Supreme Court's wages, employers with employees in California who wish to establish an incentive program similar to the Wages should stock the following recommendations to help ensure that the forfeiture provisions will not california the California Labor Code: Most importantly, all forfeiture california should under clearly and unambiguously disclosed.

Make sure that the effect of a termination without cause is considered when planning layoffs. SCal. The California Supreme Court options in dicta that an employee who is terminated when there are no wages services to be performed in order to earn a commission cannot be denied the commission. That cautionary note must be considered carefully by employers when designing incentive law and considering what conditions an employee must fulfill in order to earn an incentive.

The exact stock between an incentive that is calculated in some relationship to sales, but which is also conditioned on continued service, remains to be addressed.

Are Value Holdings, Cal. Brian Dixon and Ellen N. If you would like further information, please contact california Littler attorney at 1. HR, human resources, HR community, human resources community, HR best are, best practices in human resources, online communities for HR, HR articles, HR news, human resources articles, human resources news, HR events, leadership, performance management, staffing and options, benefits, options, staffing, recruitment, workforce acquisition, human capital management, HR law, human resources management, HR metrics and measurement, organizational development, executive coaching, HR law, employment law, labor relations, hiring employees, HR outsourcing, human resources outsourcing, training and development hr.

HR menus Are events HR California.