Skip to main content

Failure to Reimburse For Mileage: Grounds For Constructive Discharge Claim


Vasquez v. Franklin Management Real Estate Fund, Inc. - Second District Court of Appeal, CA 

Facts:  Management Real Estate Fund ("Defendant") employed Vasquez ("Plaintiff) as a maintenance technician at $10 per hour for a 40-hour week.  Plaintiff's duties included driving his own vehicle to a hardware store and performing other errands in obtaining items needed in maintaining defendant's apartments.  When Defendant refused to reimburse Plaintiff for the mileage expenses, Plaintiff quit and sued Defendant for constructive discharge in violation of public policy.  Plaintiff claimed he had no choice but to resign after his repeated requests were denied after 15 months on the job.  His suit alleged violation of California Labor Code Section 2802 and that the denial of reimbursement effectively left him with less than minimum wage during his tenure.

The trial court originally dismissed Plaintiff's complaint after concluding that an employer’s failure to pay mileage expenses of $15 per day was not conduct “so intolerable or aggravated that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt no choice but to resign.”  Plaintiff appealed and argued that the employer, in effect, required Plaintiff to use his own wages to pay for the employer’s costs of doing business.  Since Plaintiff only earned $10.00 per hour, the mileage expenses allegedly represented a significant portion of his take-home pay.  The Court of Appeal reversed and held that an employee could state a cause of action for wrongful constructive discharge when an employer refuses to reimburse a low-wage earner for mileage expenses. 

Holding:  The Court of Appeal noted that the existence of a legal violation alone, generally does not establish intolerable work conditions.  However, in this case, Plaintiff alleged not only the statutory violation, but that the assigned duties required such extensive driving that reimbursement represented a significant percentage of his already low salary.  The court also concluded that California’s minimum wage law represents a fundamental policy for purposes of a claim for wrongful termination or constructive discharge in violation of public policy.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found the  Plaintiff should be allowed to present evidence to establish these facts from which the triers of fact could find that respondent "knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign." 

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that an employee could state a cause of action for wrongful constructive discharge when an employer refuses to reimburse a low-wage earner for mileage expenses. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Manella 

Date:  December 31, 2013 

Opinion:  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1874456909018923017

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more