As
a
first-year
Biglaw
associate,
the
shop
at
which
I
worked
had
a
generous
vacation
policy. They
gave
all
attorneys
four
weeks
of
paid
vacation
each
year,
and
when
an
employee
left
the
firm,
the
shop
paid
up
to
four
weeks’
worth
of
vacation
time
to
the
departing
worker.
Many
firms
these
days
have
open-ended
vacation
policies,
which
bosses
say
is
preferable
because
people
theoretically
can
take
off
as
much
as
they
wish. In
reality,
we
all
know
that
such
policies
allow
employers
to
avoid
needing
to
pay
out
for
unused
vacation
time,
and
employers
can
use
implied
pressure
to
keep
employees
from
taking
too
much
time
off. While
thinking
about
such
policies
recently,
I
wondered
if
there
was
anything
morally
wrong
with
someone
using
such
policies
to
take
a
long
vacation
and
then
quitting
even
if
they
haven’t
worked
at
a
firm
for
a
long
time.
Earlier
in
my
career,
I
worked
at
a
midsized
law
firm
that
had
an
open-ended
vacation
time. The
firm
allowed
associates
to
take
off
as
much
vacation
time
as
they
pleased
so
long
as
they
satisfied
the
firm’s
expectations
when
it
came
to
billable
hours. People
at
this
firm
generally
took
a
decent
amount
of
vacation
time
off
since
the
firm
paid
workers
below
market
salaries
and
the
vacation
policy
was
one
of
the
perceived
perks
of
working
at
this
firm.
During
my
time
at
this
shop,
an
associate
arrived
at
the
firm
and
got
married
about
four
to
five
months
later. The
associate
ended
up
taking
about
four
weeks
of
vacation
time
because
of
his
wedding. This
seems
like
a
lot,
but
I
believe
that
the
associate
got
married
outside
of
our
area
and
had
planned
his
honeymoon
months
before
joining
the
law
firm.
When
the
associate
returned
to
work,
everyone
was
shocked
to
discover
that
he
tendered
his
two-week
notice. It
seems
that
our
firm
was
not
this
associate’s
first
preference
when
it
came
to
employers,
and
he
had
been
speaking
with
folks
at
another
shop
for
a
long
time
about
a
potential
job
offer. It
just
so
happened
that
the
job
offer
came
through
right
when
this
associate
returned
from
his
honeymoon,
and
the
new
opportunity
was
difficult
to
pass
up.
Of
course,
management
at
our
firm
was
not
pleased. Not
only
had
they
invested
time
and
resources
into
training
this
associate
during
his
short
stint
at
our
shop,
but
they
recently
permitted
him
to
take
a
long
paid
vacation
to
attend
wedding
festivities
and
his
honeymoon. The
associate
seemed
contrite,
and
he
offered
to
pay
the
firm
back
the
wages
he
earned
while
taking
his
four
weeks
of
vacation. However,
the
firm
did
not
take
the
associate
up
on
the
offer,
and
I
did
not
understand
the
mechanics
of
such
an
offer
since
the
associate
presumably
had
tax
withholdings
that
would
have
to
be
factored
into
this
type
of
resolution.
My
initial
reaction
to
this
associate
taking
a
long
vacation
and
quitting
was
negative
since
it
left
my
shop
in
the
dust
and
all
of
the
other
associates
had
to
share
his
work
while
my
firm
found
a
replacement. But
now
that
I
think
about
it,
this
episode
could
be
karma
for
the
firm
maintaining
an
unrestricted
and
ill-defined
vacation
policy
in
the
first
place. If
the
associate
earned
vacation
days
over
time
on
a
set
schedule,
the
firm
could
have
informed
the
associate
that
he
did
not
have
enough
vacation
time
to
take
the
trip. However,
the
firm
likely
did
not
want
to
be
tied
down
to
such
a
policy,
and
so
they
were
left
holding
the
bag
when
an
associate
used
the
policy
to
his
advantage.
I
would
love
feedback
from
readers
on
this
issue,
do
people
think
workers
have
a
moral
obligation
not
to
act
underhandedly
to
employers?
My
feeling
is
employers
already
take
a
lot
from
employees,
and
workers
should
generally
be
free
to
use
workplace
policies
against
those
who
employ
them.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.