Dispute over unused vacation & sick time; Principle that under Indiana law a vacation with pay is in effect additional wages; Die & Mold, Inc. v. Western (IN App.); Timing of wage payments under Indiana law; IN Code 22-2-5-1(b) & 2; Brown v. Butcher & Christian Consulting, Inc. (IN App.); Principle that under Indiana law sick leave is not a benefit that automatically vests when earned; Shorter v. Sullivan (IN App.); Determining whether sick leave benefits are wages on a case-by-case basis; Schwartz v. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. (IN App.); Effect of deposition testimony; Ortega v. Lenderink; Barlow v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.; Casey v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.; Principle that stipulations of fact are binding but stipulations of law are not; Staff v. Marder

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for plaintiff-former employer in this declaratory action involving defendant-former employee's request for unpaid vacation and sick time. After he resigned, defendant sought payment of his unused vacation and sick time. Plaintiff initially paid a prorated amount, but later sent a check for an annual amount after receiving a demand letter from his attorney. When defendant refused to cash it, plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment. Defendant counterclaimed for damages and attorney fees under Indiana law (he worked at plaintiff’s Indiana facility). The trial court found that defendant was not entitled to damages or attorney fees under Indiana law because he was paid all that he was owed. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that because plaintiff did not pay him for all of his unused vacation time until months later, he was entitled to damages and fees. Rather, because plaintiff tendered defendant a check "representing payment for 153 hours, in addition to the 7 hours he had already been paid, there were no ‘unpaid wages’ under Indiana Law.” There was no dispute that plaintiff “paid defendant the equivalent of 160 hours of vacation time before defendant filed his counterclaim. Thus, under Brown, there were no unpaid wages” triggering the penalty provisions of the relevant Indiana statute. The trial court also did not err in determining “that defendant was only entitled to 160 hours of unused vacation time as of the date of his resignation, not 167 hours.” As to payment for unused sick time, the court again agreed with the trial court that “under Indiana law, plaintiff was not obligated to pay for unused sick time when its employees separated from the company.” Plaintiff did not allow employees to convert vacation time into sick time, and did not have a policy of paying for unused sick time upon separation. Finally, the trial court did not err when it found defendant was precluded from seeking more than 160 hours of vacation pay because he admitted during his deposition he was only seeking payment for that time. There was “no evidence from which it might be inferred that defendant’s deposition statement was inadvertent or mistaken.” Because the statement described the factual circumstances underlying the claim rather than the legal theory forming the basis of the claim, the admission was binding. Affirmed.