Summary. California Labor Code Section requires that all employers reimburse employees for the necessary business expenses incurred by the employee. Under Labor Code section , employers need to reimburse employees for any .. the burden will be on Uber at trial to 'disprove an employment relationship . Employees have a powerful tool in California Labor Code Section to recover unpaid expenses incurred in the course of employment. The three key.
Actual expense method of reimbursement In examining the different methods of reimbursement, the Supreme Court held that the actual expense method is the most accurate, but it is also the most burdensome for both the employer and the employee.
Under the actual expense method, the parties calculate the automobile expenses that the employee actually and necessarily incurred and then the employer separately pays the employee that amount. Under the mileage reimbursement method, the employee only needs to keep a record of the number of miles driven for job duties.
The employer then multiplies the miles driven by a predetermined amount that approximates the per-mile cost of owning and operating an automobile.
It is important to note that while this amount can be negotiated, the employee still is unable to waive their right to reimbursement of their actual costs as mentioned above. Lump sum payment method Under the lump sum method, the employee need not submit any information to the employer about work-required miles driven or automobile expenses incurred.
Recover Your Unpaid Employment Expenses – CA Labor Code Sec. 2802
The employer merely pays an agreed fixed amount for automobile expense reimbursement. This type of lump sum payment is often labeled as a per diem, car allowance, or gas stipend. In Gattuso, the Court made it clear that employers paying a lump sum amount have the extra burden of separately identifying and documenting the amounts that represent payment for labor performed and the amounts that represent reimbursement for business expenses.
The analysis is very difficult, and fact intensive, and employers should approach this issue with caution. The Division Labor Standards Enforcement DLSE take that position that in order to determine whether training time is compensable under California law, the following eleven factors would be taken into consideration: However, employers can specify that qualified graduates will be considered for employment. The DLSE has opined is part of the analysis is that the employee does not have to be paid for voluntary attendance at training programs.
Who is responsible for costs of training programs? The DLSE takes the position that there is generally no requirement that an employer pay for training leading to licensure or the cost of licensure for an employee.
Labor Code | California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog
The DLSE states that the most important consideration of the licensure is that it is required by the state or locality as a result of public policy: Overdrivers have worked for Uber in California during this time period, and while the case is making a lot of news, what are the key issues employers should understand about the ruling?
Otherwise, the employer would receive a windfall because it would be allowed to pass its operating expenses onto its employees. Thus, an employer must pay some reasonable percentage of the employee's cell phone bill in order to comply with Labor Code section The Court held that the trial court erroneously assumed that it could not determine Schwan's Home Service's liability without inquiring into the specifics of each class member's cell phone plan.
Regardless of who pays an employee's cell phone bill or whether the employee changed plans to accommodate work-related cell phone usage, an employee who is required to make work-related calls on a personal cell phone is incurring an expense for purposes of section To show liability under sectionan employee only need show that he or she was required to use a personal cell phone to make work-related calls and that he or she was not reimbursed. Damages, however, will raise more complicated issues.
Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred when it denied Cochran's motion for class certification, and it reversed and remanded.
It is unclear whether Labor Code section applies to public agencies. Labor Code section does not expressly apply to public entities, and two California Courts of Appeal have held that public entities are not subject to general Labor Code provisions unless expressly included. Yet this is California.
Labor Code Section Archives | California Employment Law Report
Does its law require the employer to get involved? The answer, like so much in California employment law, depends. California has a peculiarly strong public policy requiring employers to indemnify employees sued for conduct occurring as part of their employment.
Labor Code section codifies this policy. California employers, thus, must indemnify employees if their conduct falls within the scope of employment. The duty to indemnify is not, however, a duty to defend.