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,...
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