With the continued efforts of employers to get staff again to the workplace in some capability, the query of what bills are reimbursable has once more grow to be related. California Labor Code part 2802 requires employers to reimburse staff “for all vital expenditures … incurred by the worker in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” As well as, such bills have to be cheap. In 2014, in Cochran v. Schwan’s House Service, Inc., the courtroom established that employers should reimburse staff for the enterprise use of non-public cell telephones in lots of circumstances. Then, throughout the pandemic, it turned broadly accepted (and litigated-in Williams v. Amazon.com Companies LLC) that Labor Code part 2802 requires employers to reimburse staff for “fundamental prices” associated to their distant work (similar to web, electrical energy, and workplace gear) the place the employer knew or had motive to know the prices have been being incurred. Quick-forward to this previous month, in Thai v. Worldwide Enterprise Machines Company (IBM), the place the courtroom arguably expanded an employer’s obligation to reimburse staff. The courtroom rejected an interpretation that the regulation solely requires reimbursement for bills straight brought on by the employer, as a substitute counting on an evaluation of “whether or not the bills have been really as a consequence of efficiency of the worker’s duties.”
Placing this into the context of a hybrid work surroundings the place an employer permits, however doesn’t require, staff to work remotely, given the courtroom’s reasoning above, it seems an employer would nonetheless be obligated to reimburse staff for some portion of distant work bills. Beneath the prior “vital and cheap” customary, an employer might argue that allowing an worker to work at home was not a “vital” expenditure. After Thai v. IBM, I’m not so certain. Accordingly, it might be time to overview your work at home and reimbursement insurance policies with counsel.
