California law generally holds that an employer may not pass the ordinary costs of doing business on to employees. However, this general rule has a multitude of nuances once one examines all the different costs that arise in the employment context and the various Labor Code and Wage Order provisions that apply. This article addresses
Expense reimbursement may seem like a small issue in comparison with the other areas of liability facing California employers, but the exposure for not appropriately reimbursing employees can be substantial. In Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the parameters of mileage reimbursement under California law, as well as the three
California employers need to routinely need to review their policies and practices to make sure they are complying with intricacies that may arise in their work place. In law school, attorneys-to-be are taught to “issue spot,” and the unfortunate litigation landscape that faces California employers, business owners and their supervisors must also “issue spot” and
Expense reimbursement may seem like a small issue in comparison with the other areas of liability facing California employers, but the 
exposure for not appropriately reimbursing employees can be substantial. In Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified the parameters of mileage reimbursement under California law, as well as the three
Employers that utilize interns, or who provide training to individuals that may lead to employment run the risk of having these individuals qualify as an employee, which would require the employer to comply with Labor Code requirements such as minimum wage, meal and rest breaks, and overtime pay. The analysis is very difficult, and fact
This week, a federal court in northern California certified portions of a class action 
brought by Uber drivers who worked in California since 2009 (click here for the decision [PDF]). Over 160,000 drivers have worked for Uber in California during this time period, and while the case is making a lot of news,
1) Gratuities
All tips are the emp
loyee’s property, and cannot be taken by the employer. Labor Code section 350 states unequivocally that “Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees for whom it was paid, given or left for.” In addition, Labor Code section 351 clearly states
You may recall from your college business law class of the “American rule” regarding attorney’s 
fees: generally in the United States each side is responsible to their own attorney’s fees, and unlike other countries, the loser does not have to pay the other party’s attorney’s fees. Employers can basically ignore this general rule
Colin Cochran brought a putative class action against his employers, Schwan’s Home Service, on
behalf of 1,500 customer service managers who were not reimbursed for expenses pertaining to the work-related use of their personal cell phones. He alleged causes of action for violation of Labor Code section 2802; unfair business practices under Business and Professions
In my last post, I wrote about what steps employers should talk to comply with the new employment laws for 2015. This post discusses more generally what employers should audit on a yearly basis. And with the year coming to a close, now is a great time to review these five items:
1. Expense reimbursement