News & Analysis as of

Appeals › Labor Code › Reimbursements

Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi LLP

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

Laughlin, Falbo, Levy & Moresi LLP on

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

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Reimbursing California Remote Employees' Expenses: Obligation Confirmed

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP on

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

Proskauer - California Employment Law on

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

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP

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

Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP on

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

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

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

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on

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

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

Epstein Becker & Green

Act Now Advisory: California Court of Appeals Holds That Employees Must Be Reimbursed for Using Personal Cell Phones for...

Epstein Becker & Green on

In Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service Inc., the California Court of Appeals posed the following question: "Does an employer always have to reimburse an employee for the reasonable expense of the mandatory use of a personal cell...more

7 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide