California’s First District Court of Appeal issued an important decision regarding the reimbursement of business expenses for remote workers on July 11, 2023 in Thai v. International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) (2023), Cal.Rptr.3d. The decision holds that California Labor Code § 2802 provides remote workers with the right to recover business expenses incurred from necessary remote work for the benefit of the employer, regardless of whether the employer chose to have the employees work from home.
Labor Code § 2082(a) requires an employer to reimburse an employee “all necessary expenditures … incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties.” This action was brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) to collect penalties for Section 2802 violations on behalf of the Plaintiffs, other similarly aggrieved employees, and the State of California.
After Governor Gavin Newsome’s March 19, 2020 stay-at-home order at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies transitioned to fully remote operations to comply, including IBM. IBM employees purchased various services and pieces of equipment that were necessary to perform their jobs remotely, including telephone services, internet access, headsets, computers, and accessories for their computers. Employees personally paid for these expenses and never received reimbursement from IBM — despite IBM knowing that employees were taking on these expenses out-of-pocket.
Plaintiffs, employees of IBM, filed a PAGA action against IBM on behalf of the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency and other similarly aggrieved IBM employees. The trial court in San Francisco found in favor of IBM, reasoning that Plaintiffs were unable to allege that IBM’s instructions for employees to work from home was the “independent, direct cause” of the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by IBM employees. Instead, the trial court found that Governor Newsome’s mandate was an “intervening cause,” making IBM not a “direct” cause of employers incurring these expenses.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that IBM was required to reimburse employee expenditures on items and services necessary to perform work remotely. The Court identified three requirements of a cause of action alleging violations of § 2802: (1) the employee made expenditures or incurred loss; (2) the expenditures of losses were incurred as a direct consequence of the employee’s job duties at the direction of the employer; and (3) the expenditures or losses were necessary. IBM’s main argument against liability was that Plaintiffs had not proven the second requirement of their claim, as IBM was not the direct cause of the expenses, but instead, that Governor Newsom’s mandate insulated them from liability.
The Court of Appeal examined the language of the statute and found no such justification or requirement that the employer be the direct cause of the expenses incurred by the employee. Instead, they read the language of the statute to simply require the expenses to be “actually due to the performance of the employee’s duties” for employer’s to be liable. Further, the Court elucidated that there exists a strong public policy consideration favoring reimbursement of remote work expenses, and infers the legislature’s intent to allocate risk of unexpected expenses to the employer, as the statute does not exempt unexpected expenses from the employer’s reimbursement liability.
As the expenses for which Plaintiff’s seek reimbursement were incurred by employees in performance of their “actual work duties” for IBM, IBM must reimburse employees for these expenses.
There are limits to the court’s holding, however. The requirement to reimburse employees for expenses arising in performance of their actual work duties does not include items that are “generally usable in all circumstances.” The Northern District has held that expenses from personal protective equipment, such as face masks or hand sanitizer are not required to be reimbursed by the employer under § 2802, as they are generally usable in all circumstances. See Williams v. Amazon.com Services LLC (2022) WL 1769124. N.D. Cal. California state courts have attempted to clarify what type of expenses are not generally usable and require reimbursement from the employer, holding years ago that employee use of personal cell phone for work requires reimbursement under § 2802. See Cochran v. Schwan’s Home Serv., Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1137.
In summary, employers have no excuse to avoid reimbursing employees for expenses incurred by working remotely as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic or other external factors, so long as those expenses are incurred by employees in performance of their work duties.
If you believe you have been required to pay for business expenses as part of your remote work, please contact Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C..
Bryan Schwartz and team are stellar professionals. I worked really closely with Renato Flores. He was patient and showed a lot of care and rigor in explaining the ins and out to me and the practical advice he shared was outstanding. Bryan is well connected…
Exceptional people, powerful advocates, tough negotiators. Bryan Schwartz and senior associate Jane Mackie truly care about fairness and justice. Their hard work, attention to detail, and the time and responsiveness they devoted to all my questions let me know in a hundred ways that they…
I cannot say enough GREAT things about Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. -- and in particular, former paralegal Devin Stuzin. I was recently part of a large class-action settlement -- one the firm tenaciously pursued for a whopping 17 years before getting a record settlement on…
Best people they took my case right a way and fought and win my case best lawyers in bay-area love you all
I was a member of the Doering Meyer class action lawsuit versus the State Department. Bryan Schwartz is a very tenacious and outstanding attorney. When this law firm first contacted me about the case, I was skeptical about their ability to win a case against…
Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C., is a leading employment rights law firm in the United States with a global reach. His is a legal practice of conscientiousness and virtue. Labor law protects a most fundamental right of citizenship and civic engagement. Worker rights are human rights.…
A great team, who kept me informed every step of the way along a many year path to winning a successful class action case.
The staff at this firm are very professional, responsive, friendly, and effective. They persevere for years to get results. I highly recommend them.
Amazing experience with communication and handling of this massive case; I appreciate the help and resolution.
I had a great experience with the firm. They represented me and others in a case that lasted for several years, yet I always knew who to contact and they were always responsive and professional, even as more junior team members transitioned over the years.…
Submit an inquiry to have Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. evaluate your situation.
*Your submission of an intake request form does not guarantee that Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. will take your case or provide legal advice. You must be offered and sign a representation agreement with the firm before you will receive any legal advice.
How did we do?
Note: Your review may be shared publicly.