Skip to main content

Employers Required to Reimburse Employees for Work Calls on Personal Cell Phones


Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two


Facts:  The Plaintiff, Colin Cochran, sought to bring a class action against Schwan's based upon Shwan's failure to reimburse him and similarly situated employees for use of their personal cell phones for work related calls.  The Superior Court denied the motion for class certification.  In essence, the Superior Court held that individual fact issues were prevalent (so a class action on behalf of the group would not be appropriate) such as whether employees paid for the cell phone plan themselves, whether employees purchased different cell phone plans because of work phone usage, etc.  

Holding:  The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court and held that it is irrelevant whether an employee has "unlimited minutes" or actually paid the cell phone bill by himself/herself.  The Court held that the critical issue is whether the employee was required to use his/her cell phone to make work related calls and whether the employee was reimbursed.  As a result, the Court sent the case back to the Superior Court with orders to reexamine plaintiff's case in light of California law.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court and held that class certification could be proper and that an employer can be required to reimburse employees for work related calls on personal cell phones.

The Takeaway:  California employers need to ensure that work related calls that are made on an employee's personal cell phone are reimbursed, or risk violating California law.  Employers should follow this case to see what other developments arise.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Sanchez-Gordon

Date:  August 12, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B247160.PDF

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