The fast food chain Carl’s Jr. was sued this week in a class action brought by California managers who claim they were not paid for expenses incurred while driving for work-related purposes. The lead plaintiff claims that she regularly drove her personal vehicle to meetings, other restaurants and banks but was not reimbursed for mileage or other expenses. According to the lawsuit, company policy only provided for reimbursement of business-related mileage expenses for out-of-town travel. Other California companies have been hit with similar suits.
The California Labor Code provides that non-commuting mileage (e.g. a run to the bank during the work day) must be reimbursed by the employer if the employee is driving his or her own vehicle and the mileage is incurred in the discharge of the employee's duties. In fact, the law is quite broad:
An 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 . . .
Arguably, this applies well beyond mileage to expenses to things such as cell phones, tools, computers, internet service and office supplies if they are used for work. Massachusetts has a similar law that requires reimbursement for all transportation expenses during the workday (not commuting).
Obviously, if your business operates in California or Massachusetts, you need to ensure that you are complying with these laws. If you are not in those states, do not assume you are immune to legal issues related to reimbursement for work day travel expenses. Employment agreements and policies provide potential pitfalls for employers in this area and could be the basis for contract and promissory estoppel claims. Also, there is always the possibility of inconsistent treatment with respect to reimbursement, which could lead to discrimination litigation.
With gas prices rising, companies may be considering cutting back on reimbursement. At the same time, employees may be especially sensitive to the cost of operating their vehicles. This strikes me as a recipe for employment litigation. It would be wise to review policies and practices in this area as soon as possible — summer may bring even higher gas prices.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Employer Rules
- Labor Law
- Wage & Hour
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Department of Labor
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Coronavirus
- Artificial Intelligence
- Worker Classification
- NLRB
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Title VII
- OSHA
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Compliance
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- Harassment
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- Supreme Court
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Workplace Accommodations
- Overtime Pay
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Whistleblower
- Sexual Harassment
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- No Free Delivery: Misclassification Comes at a Price
- One Tweet Away From Trouble: Social Media at Work
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA