Seyfarth Shaw LLP | www.seyfarth.com Litigating CA Wage & Hour Class and PAGA Actions (23rd Edition) 37 In calculating the reimbursement amount due under Section 2802, the employer may consider not only the actual expenses that the employee incurred, but also whether each of those expenses was ‘necessary,’ which in turn depends on the reasonableness of the employee’s choices.177 For example, an employee’s choice of automobile will significantly affect the costs incurred. An employee who chooses an expensive model and replaces it frequently will incur substantially greater depreciation costs than an employee who chooses a lower priced model and replaces it less frequently.178 Similarly, some vehicles use substantially more fuel or require more frequent or more costly maintenance and repairs than others. The choice of vehicle will also affect insurance costs. Other employee choices, such as the brand and grade of gasoline or tires and the shop performing maintenance and repairs, will also affect the actual costs.179 Another decision issued around the same time as Gattuso, this one from the Court of Appeal, also held that employers must reimburse for employee business expenses. In Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.,180 three drivers brought a class action against FedEx, contending that for the limited purpose of their entitlement to reimbursement for work-related expenses, they were employees, not independent contractors, and thus were entitled to reimbursement of business expenses under Section 2802. Although FedEx maintained that payments it made as part of its operating agreement with the drivers provided reasonable compensation for expenses, the trial court disagreed and ordered FedEx to pay $5.3 million for underreimbursed expenses.181 The Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed the trial court’s central finding that the drivers were employees for purposes of Section 2802 and that FedEx had failed to indemnify the drivers fully for their business expenses as required by Section 2802. Estrada held that although the drivers were entitled to recover their out-of-pocket expenses and work accident insurance premiums, they were not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of purchasing trucks to perform the job.182 In essence, Estrada held that an employer may require employees to furnish their own vehicles to perform a job without indemnifying the employees for the cost of such purchases. Estrada’s reasoning also suggested that employers may be allowed to require employees to purchase other items as a pre-condition of employment, such as cell phones or computers, and that the requirement to furnish such items as a condition of employment does not violate the reimbursement requirements of Section 2802.183 177 Id. at 568. 178 Id. 179 Id. 180 Estrada v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 154 Cal. App. 4th 1, 26 (2007). 181 Id. at 4. 182 Id. at 26. 183 DLSE Bulletin 84-7 states that “an applicant for employment may be required, as a condition of employment, to furnish his [ ] own automobile or truck to be used in the course of employment, regardless of the amount of wages paid.” Under Section 2802, “an employer who requires an employee to furnish his [ ] own car or truck to be used in the course of employment would be obligated to reimburse the employee for the costs necessarily incurred by the employee in using the car or truck in the course of employment.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4