The Truth About Work Related Business Expenses

According to the Labor Code section 2802, employers are required to reimburse employees for all expenses or losses in direct consequence to the performance of their duties assigned by the employer. In most cases, such expenses arise during assignments requiring business travel, in the form of mileage, ticket and dining costs.

Regarding mileage, employers are required to reimburse employees at or below the rate specified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and anything beyond the IRS rate may be taxable as wages. The IRS mileage reimbursement rate, which is based on a national average of the cost of operating a motor vehicle including initial purchase/lease cost, repairs, maintenance, fluctuating fuel costs, and cost of insurance, contemplates all reasonable costs associated with automobile expenses and is approved by a Court decision. The employer must show sufficiency if it plans to use a lower mileage rate than the IRS rate, which proves it is reimbursing employees for their actual business travel expenses.

A new rate of 55.5 cents per mile takes effect on July 1, 2011, which was very recently decided upon by the IRS as a midyear increase. The new rate applies to all business travel miles driven from July 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Due to constantly changing prices and regulations, employees should always visit the IRS website for the most up-to-date rate.

Since common wage laws (such as those regulating the time and place of earnings payment) do not apply to expense reimbursements, the employer may reimburse such costs on any reasonable schedule. According to the California Supreme Court, employers are allowed to reimburse employees for business travel expenses by paying them a lump sum reimbursement in addition to their wages, so long as the wages and the reimbursement amount are clearly itemized.

There are three approved reimbursement methods clarified by the Court, defined as follows:

Actual Expense Method: this method is fairly self explanatory – it simply requires the employer to keep detailed records of all actual expenses including fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, registration, and depreciation. Since this is obviously a very burdensome method, very few employers choose to use the actual expense method to calculate business travel reimbursement costs.

Mileage Reimbursement Method: this method tends to be the most common in use, because it simply requires the employee to track the number of miles driven to perform the required job duties and submit that information to the employer. In this case, the employer would use the IRS rate per mile to repay the employee for business travel expenses. However, because the IRS rate is an approximation of actual expenses, it is less accurate than the actual expense method, so an employee must be permitted to challenge the resulting reimbursement payment.

Lump Sum Payment: in this method, employers pay a fixed amount for business travel reimbursements instead of employees submitting documentation of expenses. The amount is based on the employers' general understanding of each employee's job duties, including the number of miles an employee routinely drives to perform those duties. Although this is a Court approved method, it was specified that it is only appropriate if the lump sum is sufficient to provide full reimbursement for actual expenses, and employees can still challenge the lump sum amount if they believe it is inadequate.

If you believe your employer is failing to properly reimburse you for business travel expenses following an accurate method as described above, you may be eligible to file a claim. Contact the California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik if so.

Wrongful Termination Lawyers: When should Employees seek their Help?

Wrongful termination lawyers defend employees in various situations, including discrimination, violation of public policy, fraud (via misrepresentation at the date of hire), contractual breach and constructive discharge, among others. What do all of these scenarios have in common? The employees who suffer through them all put some measure of trust into their employer, but are deceived at their own expense.


Employers should practice fair dealing and good faith at all times, meaning they should treat similarly situated employees in the same manner. However, this often times is not the case due to widespread subjectivity in our business culture. Wrongful termination lawyers can help defend those who are treated unfairly in the following scenarios: Discrimination, Violations of public Policy, Fraud and Constructive Discharge.


Discrimination: in a discrimination suit, wrongful termination of an employee occurs due to his or her possession of certain characteristics rather than for legitimate reasons.


Violations of Public Policy: in a suit based on the allegation of violation of public policy, the employee must show that (1) the public policy involved is derived from an administrative regulation, state or federal statute, and (2) that the policy is fundamental and of benefit to the general public, rather than just to the employee or employer. It is the employer’s job, on the other hand, to show that it decided to terminate the employee based on legitimate business reasons.


Fraud (via Misrepresentation at the date of Hire): an employer may be liable for fraud if it makes promises at the date of hire that it fails to keep. For example, if at the date of hire the employer promises regular pay rate increases that that it never intended to deliver, it has committed fraud. It is thus very important for employees to accurately and adequately record such promises as soon as they are made in order to give wrongful termination lawyers strong foundations to defend a claim.


Contractual Breach: this occurs when written, oral, and implied contracts are not fulfilled by the employer. It is up to the employee to prove that the contract exists and that he or she suffered from wrongful termination in violation of that contract. Employers often try to avoid these lawsuits by asking employees to sign the Confirmation of Receipt, which can defeat their claim that there was an implied or oral contract. On the other hand, employers can create a clause in a written contract that allows for termination at-will in order to protect them from wrongful termination claims. The best thing for employees to do is to read and understand all contracts thoroughly before signing them.


Constructive Discharge: in this type of suit, the employee claims that the working conditions were made so intolerable that a reasonable person would be compelled to resign. However, the employee is instead terminated, producing a breach in the employer’s implied promise of good faith. This most often occurs when the employee claims that he or she was harassed at work and that the employer did nothing to prevent the harassment.


If you are an employee who has suffered from any of the above scenarios, contact the offices of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik today to file a claim with our Wrongful Termination lawyers.

Employment Lawyer Hiring Guide

Employees need to hire employment law attorneys for many different reasons. This post discusses three major factors that workers must consider and know about before hiring a labor law attorney for actions involving: unpaid overtime wages, wrongful termination, workplace discrimination, sexual harassment and all related types of violations of the law.

The first and most important factor that workers must consider before hiring an employment law attorney is whether or not the employee has enough money to pay for an attorney. If workers do not have enough money to pay an attorney hourly, he or she is not out of luck because many California employment law firms take work related employee rights lawsuits on a contingency fee basis.

The second factor that workers must consider when hiring a labor law attorney is whether or not the law firm has a record of successfully litigating employment related lawsuits and cases. Although a winning record does not guarantee that the law firm will win any cases in the future, success tends to repeat itself and the firms that win cases against big companies tend to continue to win labor lawsuits.

The last factor that employees must consider is whether not they want to go forward with filing a lawsuit. Most labor and employment law attorneys in California limit their practices to filing lawsuits as opposed to providing employees with just legal advice. Employees should consider if they are prepared to file a lawsuit against the company prior to reaching out to an attorney.

Verizon FiOS First Level Local Manager Overtime Lawsuit

This url is dedicated to the Verizon FiOS First Level Local Manager Overtime Lawsuit. To stay updated about the FiOS local manager overtime wage lawsuit bookmark this site or contact one of our employment law offices in California.

The lawsuit is challenges Verizon's policy and practice of treating local managers as exempt from overtime pay. In order to avoid paying employees in California overtime compensation, the workers must not meet any of the job duties test of an exemption from overtime. In this lawsuit, the local managers contend they are entitled to overtime pay because they are not exempt employees as administrators, professionals or executives.

MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION COURT DOCUMENTS

San Francisco Employment Lawyers

Many employees in the San Francisco bay area have become victims to big company illegal employment law practices and policies which have the effect of cheating employees out of the fair amount of money that they are owed by the company. There are many big companies in the San Francisco bay area in every different type of industry that exists, including the computer industry, technology industry, manufacturing industry and banking industry.

The question is what can employees to do to fight back when their employer stops playing by the rules. On a positive note, there are many great San Francisco employment lawyers that are willing to take employee cases on a contingency fee basis so the employees do not have to put any money down. These attorneys even front all the costs of litigation to make it so that the workers have a chance of going up against a big company.

Class action lawsuits are the best way for employees to get on an even playing field with their employer when it comes to litigation. In a class action lawsuit, the employee is not only suing the company on his or her own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone who is similarly situated and has been treated unfairly by the company. Whether the class action is to collect unpaid overtime pay or for discrimination practices committed by the company, the employees stand a chance to actually get paid for the wrongful conduct as well as put a stop to the illegal employment law practices for good.

Dietitians Hit Renal Advantage with a Class Action Lawsuit for Overtime Violations

On August 15, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in San Diego, California, against Renal Advantage, Inc. by the California employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, on behalf of Dietitians who claim the dialysis centers violated their rights under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, dietitians allege that Renal Advantage failed to properly compensate them for overtime hours worked and illicitly prevented them from viewing complete and accurate wage statements, in violation of state wage and hour laws.


Updates on this Class Action will be posted here in the following months.

Metropolitan Water District of SoCal Sued for Illegal Use of an Unapproved Drug to Fulfill Fluoridation Program

On August 9, 2011, California Attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a lawsuit on behalf of Southern California citizens against the Metropolitan Water District of SoCal, alleging MWD selected and delivered a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water that was never approved for safety and effectiveness.

While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to those medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.
More information about this lawsuit will be posted here in the coming months.