News & Analysis as of

Labor Code Reimbursements

Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi LLP

Who Pays What: The Pitfalls of Contribution and Reimbursement Among Co-Defendants in Workers’ Compensation

The recent Barahona v. ABM Janitorial Services (2024) 53 CWCR 4, decision sheds light on a common but often misunderstood issue in California workers’ compensation: how liability is shared among multiple employers and...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

[Webinar] Wage & Hour Minefield: Top Compliance Risks and Litigation Trends for 2025 - February 26th, 10:00 am - 11:00 am PT

CDF Labor Law LLP on

Wage and hour claims—especially under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and class action lawsuits—continue to rise at an alarming rate. With more PAGA notices filed than ever before and wage and hour class...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Updates on Remote Work Reimbursements

Fox Rothschild LLP on

With the continued efforts of employers to get employees back to the office in some capacity, the question of what expenses are reimbursable has again become relevant. California Labor Code section 2802 requires employers to...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Employer Held Statutorily Obligated to Reimburse Employee's Work-From-Home Expenses

In Thai v. International Business Machines (IBM) Corp. No. A165390 (July 11, 2023), the Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District, held that under Labor Code section 2802(a), the employer is required...more

ArentFox Schiff

California Employers Had To Reimburse For Stay-At-Home Work

ArentFox Schiff on

As the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in early 2020, state and local governments issued stay-at-home orders. The sudden change to stay-at-home work caught many businesses by surprise, and compelled many employees, who were...more

Fisher Phillips

California Employer on the Hook for Expense Reimbursement During COVID-19 Stay-Home Orders: 4 Key Takeaways

Fisher Phillips on

On the heels of a rare win for employers regarding COVID-19 liability, a California appellate court was quick to remind employers in the state that there’s no shortage of pandemic-related requirements still in place. This is...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Employers May Be Liable For Work-From-Home Expenses

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Court of Appeal found an employer liable under Labor Code section 2802 for employee work-from-home operating expenses, despite Governor Gavin Newsom’s 2020 stay-at-home order, which precluded...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Reimbursing California Remote Employees' Expenses: Obligation Confirmed

Reimbursing employees for job-related expenses has become a hot-button issue with so many employees working remotely and even on-site employees communicating with their employers by way of their personal cell phones. The...more

Proskauer - California Employment Law

Court of Appeal Clarifies Employers’ Expense Reimbursement Obligations for Pandemic-Related Remote Work

California Labor Code section 2802 (“Section 2802”) requires employers to reimburse employees for “all necessary expenditures or losses” they incur as a “direct consequence of the discharge of … [their] duties, or … [their]...more

CDF Labor Law LLP

An Update on Remote Work Reimbursements

CDF Labor Law LLP on

California employers have recently experienced a material uptick in lawsuits from employees seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred while working from home.  These lawsuits seek a wide variety of expense reimbursement for...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Class Dismissed

One ESTOPP Shop: The Ninth Circuit Weighs In On The Use Of Equitable Estoppel To Compel Arbitration In Two Recent Decisions

When can you compel arbitration of a putative class action? The law is developing quickly and still doesn’t provide a crystal clear answer. The Ninth Circuit recently weighed in on two cases examining what happens when the...more

Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP

General Acute Care Hospitals Must Reimburse For Certain Required Trainings

Effective January 1. California Labor Code Section 2802 requires that employers reimburse employees for any “necessary expenditure or loss incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of the employee’s...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Best in Law: Remote Working Laws for Calif. Employers

BB&K Attorneys Damian Moos and Kandice Kim Write About What Employers Should Know in the Southern Calif. Newspaper Group - In response to state and local COVID-19 stay at home orders, many California employers...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Time Is Money: A Quick Wage-Hour Tip on … Recovering Amounts Owed by a Departing Employee: You Know You Probably Cannot Deduct...

Epstein Becker & Green on

In employment, as in life generally, breaking up can be hard to do. This is particularly so when a departing employee owes the employer money. Most employers understand that applicable law often prohibits simply deducting...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

A Refresher on California Reimbursement Requirements in a COVID-19 World

Imagine that after weeks of working remotely due to COVID-19, you return to your office only to discover a stack of papers on your desk in a folder titled “requests for reimbursement.” You peer through the contents and find...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

California Employers’ Duties to Reimburse Employees Working From Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic

In response to “stay-at-home” orders issued by Governor Gavin Newsom and various California municipalities to prevent the further spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) employers have been asking or requiring employees to...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Court to Consider Whether California Ride Share Drivers Who Make Airport Runs Are Exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act

Epstein Becker & Green on

On November 26, 2019, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard B. Ulmer ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) might not apply to Uber drivers who are engaged in interstate commerce while driving passengers to or...more

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

California Court of Appeal Agrees Employer Does Not Have To Pay For Shoes...This Time

Krista Townley was a server at BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. As a server, Townley was required to wear black, slip-resistant close-toed shoes pursuant to company policy.  Townley purchased a pair of canvas shoes that complied with...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Employers Can Now Stand Firmly On Not Paying Employees For The Cost Of Slip-Resistant Shoes

On June 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District issued an unpublished opinion in Krista Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. holding that BJ’s Restaurants was not required to reimburse its employees for the cost...more

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

Court of Appeal Rules Employers Not Required to Reimburse for Non-Uniform Clothing

It is well-known among employers that employees must be reimbursed for necessary expenditures and losses they incur in the discharge of their duties. (See Labor Code § 2802.) California Labor Code sections 6401 and 6403 go...more

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Plaintiff Succeeds In Claiming Unpaid Reimbursements For More Than 20,000 Miles

Jackson Lewis P.C. on

After a one-day bench trial, a sales representative for a security company successfully established that his employer had failed to reimburse him for mileage expenses, using only his odometer reading as the basis to calculate...more

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

The High Cost of Failing to Reimburse Employees for Required Work-Related Cellphone Usage

ABM Industries, a janitorial service provider, recently agreed to a $5.4 million dollar proposed settlement in Marley Castro, et al. v. ABM Industries, Inc., a class action involving a California class of over 3,000 cleaning...more

Fisher Phillips

Next Shot Fired: We’ve Read Grubhub’s 71-Page Appellate Response Brief So You Don’t Have To

Fisher Phillips on

The next shot has been fired in the long-running misclassification dispute between plaintiff Raef Lawson and gig economy giant Grubhub, as the company filed its Answering Brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals late...more

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

Claim for Failure to Reimburse Reasonable Business Expenses Not Barred by EPL Policy’s Wage and Hour Exclusion

Don’t be too surprised if you see a “wage and hour” exclusion in your employment practices liability insurance policy, especially if you have employees in California. While these exclusions purport to bar coverage for claims...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Introduction and Overview - Since the turn of the century, there has been a huge increase in the number of class action lawsuits alleging violations of California’s overtime laws or other Labor Code statutes and wage and...more

33 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide