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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more