HR California Update - February 2010

California Law Now Requires a New Posting for Workplace Injuries

(Written by Fine, Boggs & Perkins, LLP)

Commencing on February 1, 2010, a summary of job-related injuries or illnesses that occurred during the previous calendar year is required to be posted at every workplace. The California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DIR/OSHA – Cal/OSHA) requires employers to post, at the workplace, a complete summary of specific injuries and illnesses suffered by employees the year prior known as Form 300A. Employers must, while maintaining all employees’ federal, state and local privacy rights, ensure that an accurately completed Form 300A is posted from February 1, 2010 through April 30, 2010. Form 300A identifies the number of cases, number of days away from work, and injury and illness types for the precending year. Do not confuse the new Form 300A with the existing Form 300, which is a more detailed record of job-related injuries and illnesses required to be maintained at the time that an illness or injury occurs, but which is not posted. In completing Form 300A, an employer should use the information recorded on Form 300, the previous calendar year, in creating the summary information required in Form 300A. For example, all the specific injuries or illnesses an employee suffered in 2009, logged and recorded on Form 300 can be used to complete the 2010 Form 300A. Employers whom have had no qualifying illnesses or injuries should write in zeros on the total line. The completed 300A form must be displayed at the workplace in a common area typically where the other employee notices are posted.

Employers covered by this specific recordkeeping regulation include those companies with 11 or more employees at all times during the prior calendar year. Employers with 10 or less employees at all times during the previous calendar year are exempt from this type of injury and illness record keeping but must comply with the DIR/OSHA – Cal/OSHA regulations and standards by verbally reporting fatal accidents or hospitalization of three or more employees within eight hours to the nearest Cal/OSHA district office.

If you are a subscriber to HotlinkHR, you may get Form 300A under the Toolkit Tab, by clicking on the Forms button. If you would like a copy of Form 300A and you are not a subscriber, you may contact Association employment counsel, Fine, Boggs & Perkins LLP at 650.712.8908.

Federal Court Rules That, Under Section 2802 of the California Labor Code, an Employer’s Duty to Reimburse Does Not Depend on an Employee Making a Formal Request for Reimbursement.

(Written by Fine, Boggs & Perkins, LLP)

In Stuart v. RadioShack Corporation, a Federal District Court recently decided that an employees’ right to reimbursement for expenses incurred as a result of their employment does not depend on whether the employee made a specific request for reimbursement at the time the expense was incurred (or shortly thereafter).

Section 2802 of the California Labor Code states “An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties . . .”

The Plaintiffs in Stuart (a class action lawsuit) sought recovery on a class-wide basis for certain expenses incurred as a consequence of their employment with Radio Shack, including expenses incurred as a result of Radios Shack’s “Inter-Company Store Transfer” program (ICST). Radio Shack argued that to the extent that Mr. Stuart (and presumably all of the other Plaintiffs in the class) failed to submit reimbursement requests at or about the time when the expenses were incurred, then those Plaintiffs should be barred from later recovery because Radio Shack (the Employer) had no reason to believe that any reimbursable expenses had been incurred, and therefore that the Plaintiffs had waived their right to recover any non-reported expenses.

The Court considered, and rejected Radio Shack’s waiver argument. In doing so, the Court noted that Labor Code Section 2802 signifies a “strong public policy” favoring the indemnification (and defense) of employees by their employers. Because of California’s strong public policy in favor of employee reimbursement, the Court stated that its analysis should “focus not on whether an employee makes a request for reimbursement, but rather on whether the employer either knows or has reason to know that the employee has incurred a reimbursable expense, ” and if it does, the Employer “must exercise due diligence to ensure that each employee is reimbursed.”

Furthermore, in the case of Radio Shack’s failure to reimburse, the Court also noted the “undisputed” evidence that Radio Shack maintained a database with information about the ICST’s, including “for the most part” the identity of the employees who had performed the ICST’s, and that information effectively gave Radio Shack reason enough to know that the employees who had been part of the transfer program may have incurred reimbursable expenses to overcome any potential waiver argument.

Overall, this ruling indicates that an Employer’s reimbursement obligation under Labor Code Section 2802 does not depend on an employee’s reimbursement request, especially if the Employer either knows or has reason to know about the employment-related expense incurred by the employee.

If you would like more information on this topic, you may contact Association employment counsel, Fine, Boggs & Perkins LLP at 650.712.8908.