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

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