Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KENNARD, J.
Labor Code section 2802, subdivision (a), requires an employer to indemnify its employees for expenses they necessarily incur in the discharge of their duties. May an employer satisfy this statutory obligation by paying employees increased wages or commissions instead of separately reimbursing them for their actual expenses?
We conclude that an employer may satisfy its statutory reimbursement obligation by paying employees enhanced compensation in the form of increases in base salary or increases in commission rates, or both, provided there is a means or method to apportion…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Linder v. Thrifty Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Morillion v. Royal Packing Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. BradshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Hassan v. Mercy American River HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by107 opinions
- O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2016
- Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. HuntCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- People v. AriasCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
- Ennabe v. ManosaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
102 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.