The Court of Appeal of the State of California recently held in Thai v. IBM, A165390, that employers are obligated to reimburse expenses incurred by employees working from home if those expenses are a consequence of the employee’s job duties, even if those expenses were caused by state stay-at-home COVID orders rather than by the employer.
Plaintiff Paul Thai (“Thai”) is a former IBM employee whose regular job duties required internet access, telephone service, a computer, and a headset. On March 19, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-33-20 (the “Executive Order”), which ordered all individuals living in the State of California to stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal “critical infrastructure sectors.” Due to the Executive Order, IBM directed its employees, including Thai, to stay home and perform their regular duties from home. Thai paid for the services and equipment necessary to do their jobs from home, and IBM did not provide any reimbursement.
Thai filed a Private Attorneys General Act action in state court in December of 2020, seeking penalties on behalf of all IBM employees who were subject to stay-at-home orders and who were not reimbursed for work-from-home expenses during that period. The lower court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding that IBM was acting in response to government orders and that there was an intervening cause that meant that IBM was not the direct cause of employees’ work-from-home expenses. The court relied upon the language of California Labor Code section 2802, which states: “[a]n employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer . . .” Section 2802(c) defines “necessary expenditures or losses” as including “all reasonable costs, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees incurred by the employee enforcing the rights granted by this section.”
The appellate court held that the trial court’s decision was based on a tort-like causation inquiry that was not rooted in the statutory language of section 2802. The court further held that “section 2802(a) allocates the risk of unexpected expenses to the employer, which is consistent with the Legislature’s intent in adopting the statute.” The appellate court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Employers who permit remote work should be warned that California courts may interpret Labor Code section 2802 to include remote work costs, even if the decision to work remotely was not made by the employer.
This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.
- Partner
Pooja S. Nair is a business litigator and problem solver with a focus on the food and beverage sector. She advises food and beverage clients, including restaurant groups, mid-market food brands, and food manufacturers on a ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
- The Battle for Supremacy: Federal Arbitration Act v. California Arbitration Act | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014