California employment case index

A school district analyst who wanted to work entirely from home during and after the pandemic sued under FEHA and the Labor Code when her employer insisted on a phased return to the office. Division One affirmed summary judgment, holding that Government Code section 855.4 immunizes a public entity's discretionary decisions about controlling the spread of disease – including whether to permit remote work, when to require a return, and whether to mandate vaccination. But the court was explicit that it affirmed on immunity because the plaintiff's briefing 'contains no reasoned argument' explaining why her claims fell outside it, and it went on to affirm on three independent grounds: no qualifying disability, no admission of disability from holding interactive meetings, and no adverse employment action where a threatened leave was never imposed and the retirement was voluntary.

A class of 1,500 customer service managers was denied certification because the trial court believed Labor Code section 2802 liability turned on each employee's own cell phone plan and on who actually paid the bill. Division Two reversed and stated the rule in its opening sentence: when employees must use personal cell phones for work-related calls, the employer must reimburse them a reasonable percentage of the bill, whether the plan is limited or unlimited. Whether a third party paid, and whether the employee changed plans, are irrelevant – plan details go to damages, not liability. The disposition is a reversal of a certification denial, not a merits judgment.

Citigroup let employees take part of their annual compensation as discounted restricted stock vesting only after two years; an employee who resigned early forfeited both the shares and the pay used to buy them. The California Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the company, holding that no earned wages remained unpaid on resignation. The decision agrees that restricted stock is a wage – so it turns on when incentive compensation is earned, not on characterization – and expressly refuses to extend Suastez's pro rata vacation-vesting rule to voluntary incentive programs.

Harte-Hanks paid outside sales representatives higher salaries and commission rates than inside representatives and treated the difference as reimbursement for their automobile expenses. The California Supreme Court held the practice permissible in principle, but only where the employer establishes a means to identify which portion of overall compensation is intended as reimbursement and that portion fully covers expenses actually and necessarily incurred. Section 2804 bars any agreement that waives full reimbursement – a holding that unravelled the trial court's denial of class certification.