Skip to main content

"Necessary" Expenditures & Indemnity Under the California Labor Code


Carter v. Entercom Sacramento, LLC - Third District Court of Appeal, CA


Facts:  As a result of drinking too much water during a radio contest, a woman died.  Her family sued the company that owned the radio station, Entercom, and Matt Carter, an Entercom employee who helped conduct the contest.  Entercom offered to provide legal counsel to Carter, but Carter chose to hire his own attorney and refused the attorney offered by the company's insurance carrier.  When the insurer refused to pay for the attorney Carter had selected, Carter cross-complained against Entercom, seeking indemnity under California Labor Code § 2802 for the fees and costs he incurred by paying the attorney he had selected. 

The trial court held that none of the fees and costs that Carter had incurred after the insurer appointed an attorney to represent him in the suit were necessary expenditures.  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed.

Holding:  The Court held that Carter did not have an absolute right to choose his own attorney at the expense of his employer or its insurer under Section 2802.  As well, the fact that Carter faced possible punitive damages and criminal charges did not give him the ability to insist that his employer or the insurer pay for whichever attorney he chose to represent him.  Whether certain legal expenditures are "necessary" under Section 2802 is a factual question, and the Court held that Carter had failed to demonstrate that the trial court's determination of that question lacked substantial evidentiary support.

Judgment:  The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Robie

Date:  September 3, 2013

Opinion:  http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C066751.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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...
Post a Comment
Read more