Saturday Feb 04, 2023

An Update on Remote Work Reimbursements | CDF Labor Law LLP – JDSupra – JD Supra


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 increased utility costs and for the costs of losing out on the ability to rent out their home offices.  Employees typically bring these claims under Labor Code section 2802.  Sometimes employees also bring derivative PAGA actions for wage-statement “inaccuracies.”

Labor Code section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for “all necessary expenditures or losses” incurred by the employee in the discharge of their duties or under “obedience to the directions of the employer.” Importantly, Labor Code section 2802 clarifies that “necessary expenditures or losses” includes all “reasonable costs, including but not limited to attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.”

Many California businesses continue to have employees work from home or are now using a hybrid structure. These employers should be aware of their reimbursement requirements under California law and review their policies and telecommuting agreements to ensure employees are being properly reimbursed.  CDF covered remote work expenses and employer reimbursement requirements in 2020, which readers can view here.

What Defenses are Available to Employers Sued For Work-From-Home Related Expenses?

This question was very recently considered by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California on June 1, 2022.  In Williams v. Services LLC, the Court denied Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss after Amazon raised two (unsuccessful) arguments:

  1. Amazon’s adherence to government-issued stay-at-home orders absolves them of liability, and
  2. Williams did not submit reimbursement requests to Amazon so they could not know that Williams incurred work-related expenses that required reimbursement.  The Court found that despite these arguments, the plaintiff had sufficiently pled his claim under Section 2802 and denied the Motion to Dismiss.

The Court also held that Amazon’s expectation for Williams to work from home after the stay-at-home orders were imposed was sufficient to establish Amazon’s liability.  Thus, California employers who adhered to state and/or county mandates to shelter in place and/or work remotely are not likely to be shielded from liability for employee’s work-related expenses incurred during the mandated time period, even though employers were not the “cause” of the shift to remote work.  That argument did not work in the Northern District and is not likely to work elsewhere. 

The Court’s analysis of Amazon’s second argument provides guidance on how to determine an employer’s “reasonable” expectations.  The Court considered both Amazon’s status as a tech company and Williams’ position as a senior software development engineer (which entailed duties such as writing design documents for software systems and being on-call for production system) to determine that Williams’ duties “plausibly requires the use of physical space, internet, and electricity.”  Therefore, “Amazon, a major tech company, surely knew or at the very least had reason to know” that its software engineers incurred “basic costs” related to their work while they worked from home and actual notice of the costs was not required

How to Determine Basic Costs

Across a number of cases, employees’ most common “basic costs” include reliable access to the Internet, a phone, and a computer. Importantly, prior to the pandemic, courts have held that employers need only reimburse a “reasonable percentage” of an employee’s use of a personal phone or Internet costs. 

Beyond that, the “physical space” requirement as referenced in …….


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top